ReviewJournal of global health2025
Norms for scaling up small and sick newborn care: an overview of reviews.
Review in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) currently have no benchmarks or 'norms' for scaling up small and sick newborn (SSN) service delivery in health facilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our objective was to understand which systematic reviews had addressed the following norms in the last five years: number of SSN beds per live births in a district or similar administrative unit (admission beds); space requirements for SSN units, including mother-infant dyads (space); health workforce ratios in SSN units (workforce); and travel time to health facilities with SSN units (travel time). Methods: We searched for systematic reviews of admission beds, space, workforce and travel time norms for SSN under 28 days of age and their mothers in all health facilities and countries, regardless of infant gestational age and birth weight, that had been published in the previous five years (2018-23). For beds, space, and workforce norms, we searched for reviews of prevalence, incidence, mean and median estimates. For the travel time norm, we searched for reviews of estimates of effect, i.e. dichotomous (e.g. relative risks) or continuous measures (e.g. mean differences). Results: We identified 9110 records and included eight systematic reviews published in the last five years: two related to space, five to workforce, and one to travel time norms. We found no reviews for admission bed norms. Two reviews included high income countries only, while three included tertiary neonatal intensive care units only. The reviews provided estimates of mean space requirements in SSN units, health workforce ratios of doctors and nurses, and optimal travel time to health facilities for SSN. Seven of the eight reviews had high risk of bias. Conclusions: Despite the high burden of SSN in LMICs and the need to scale up hospital care, there have been few systematic reviews into this topic, and rigorous syntheses of evidence are lacking. The WHO and the UNICEF have now commissioned four systematic reviews. The next steps will be to analyse real-world country-level data and develop implementation guidance. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42023417847, CRD42023451302, CRD42023478512, CRD42023453644.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.