ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Antenatal corticosteroid administration-to-delivery intervals and neonatal outcomes in late preterm labor: a historical cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile antenatal corticosteroids (ACSs) are standard for early preterm birth, their benefit‒risk profile for the late preterm period is controversial, and the effect of the ACS-to-delivery interval on key neonatal morbidities is unclear. This study therefore examined the association between this interval and neonatal outcomes.
methodsA historical cohort study enrolled 788 singleton pregnancies at 34+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks of gestation. The non-ACS group comprised women who did not receive ACS. The ACS group was stratified into three subgroups according to the time between the first ACS dose and delivery: less than 2 days, between 2 and 7 days, and more than 7 days. The primary outcome was neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), and neonatal hypoglycemia was a key secondary outcome. The associations between newborn outcomes and the intervals between ACS treatment and delivery were examined via multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOverall, ACS administration was not associated with reduced NRDS risk. However, this association significantly varied by the administration-to-delivery interval. Compared with the non-ACS group, a significantly lower NRDS risk was observed only in the 2–7 days subgroup [odds ratio (OR) = 0.468, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.261–0.838, P = 0.011], but not in the < 2 days or > 7 days subgroups (both P > 0.05). In contrast, ACS use was associated with a significantly higher overall risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (OR = 2.594, 95% CI: 1.359–4.951, P = 0.004). This elevated risk was observed in both the < 2 days (OR = 2.922, 95% CI: 1.459–5.853, P = 0.002) and 2–7 days subgroups (OR = 2.641, 95% CI: 1.228–5.681, P = 0.013), but not when the interval exceeded 7 days. For other secondary outcomes, the need for mechanical ventilation was significantly reduced in the 2–7 days group (OR = 0.365, 95% CI: 0.152–0.873, P = 0.024).
conclusionsIn late preterm labor, ACS administration 2–7 days before delivery was associated with a lower risk of NRDS, whereas administration within 7 days was associated with a higher risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. These interval-dependent associations highlight the potential influence of timing on the benefit-risk profile of ACS and indicate the need for prospective validation.
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.