ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Variation in optimal communication modes during neonatal resuscitation.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Effective communication is paramount for neonatal resuscitation. Best practices emphasize clear, coordinated team communication. High-performing teams use both routine and critical communication modes, adjusting their approach as acuity evolves. However, the degree to which interprofessional neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) teams share an understanding of when each mode is optimal is unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of NICU providers participating in a team-development day at a large children's hospital. After an instructional session defining routine and critical communication, participants reviewed a hypothetical unplanned extubation and cardiac arrest scenario including 14 steps split into pre-code, code, and post-code phases. Participants rated optimal mode of team communication for each step using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement on communication mode for each step. We compared physicians and non-physicians across scenario phases. Results: Forty-eight providers participated, representing physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and respiratory therapists. Participants reached consensus on all code phase steps, selecting critical communication. No consensus was achieved for pre-code or post-code. Physicians selected more critical communication than non-physicians during the pre-code phase (median 4.0 vs 3.0, Conclusion: Providers within a cohesive NICU team showed divergent mental models regarding optimal communication during early and late phases of a hypothetical resuscitation. This heterogeneity may hinder rapid team alignment and represent an important target for quality-improvement efforts. Future work should evaluate communication during real resuscitations and develop strategies to support shared communication expectations across roles.
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.