SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Quality of neonatal intensive care in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality neonatal intensive care can prevent a significant proportion of neonatal deaths. A neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is essential for managing life-threatening complications among small and sick newborns. However, little is known about the quality of neonatal intensive care units in Africa. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of neonates who received essential quality of care in NICUs, assess care outcomes, and investigate variability across care elements.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using studies reporting neonatal care from African countries, following the PRISMA guidelines. Process quality of care is measured as the proportion of neonates who received essential care elements in the NICUs. Neonatal care outcome quality is evaluated by neonatal health outcomes, including survival, mortality, full enteral feeding, sepsis, weight gain, and hypothermia within the first 28 days of the NICU stay. Data were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane, as well as Google Scholar and grey literature, from July to August 2025. Quality appraisal checklists and tools were employed from the Cochrane risk of bias assessment for randomized trials, and the Joanna Briggs Institute for observational studies. Narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed, presenting pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity (I2) was assessed, and findings were summarized using tables and forest plots.
resultsAmong neonates admitted to NICUs, pooled estimates of essential quality of care in African studies were 0.78 (95%CI: 0.64–0.93) for vital signs monitoring, 0.65 (95%CI: 0.44–0.87) for antibiotic use, 0.46 (95%CI: 0.34–0.58) for oxygen therapy, 0.52 (95%CI: 0.30–0.74) for trophic feeding, 0.51 (95%CI: 0.33–0.70) for CPAP use, and 0.55 (95%CI: 0.33–0.77) for thermal care. For clinical outcomes, the pooled incidence was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.31–0.86) for hypothermia, 0.34 (95%CI: 0.11–0.57) for sepsis, 0.19 (95%CI: 0.14–0.23) for mortality, and 0.76 (95%CI: 0.69–0.82) for recovery.
conclusionA small proportion of neonates admitted to NICUs in Africa received essential quality of care, highlighting the need for targeted strategies, including quality improvement initiatives and capacity building, to enhance neonatal care and reduce adverse outcomes.
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.