Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42005614›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2026

Assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation and their validity evidence: a scoping review.

Maud Steins, Lieke Raaijmakers, Marije Hogeveen, Mathijs Binkhorst

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maud SteinsDepartment of Pediatrics, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Lieke RaaijmakersDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marije HogeveenDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mathijs BinkhorstDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Competence in neonatal resuscitation is acquired and maintained through accredited life support courses and short in-situ booster training sessions. To ensure effective knowledge and skills integration into practice, valid tools for assessing performance are essential. The aim of this scoping review was to identify all available tools assessing overall performance neonatal resuscitation and evaluate their reported validity evidence. Methods: In January 2024 and July 2025, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies describing assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation and their associated validity evidence. All study types describing neonatal resuscitation assessment tools for simulation and clinical practice were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstract followed by full-text screening. Data were extracted using predefined forms. Results: A total of 146 sources were included, identifying 82 unique assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation. The number of included items in these tools varied widely, ranging from 5 to 133 (median = 22, IQR = 15-36). Some form of validity evidence was reported for 73.2% of these tools. Most studies reported items from classical frameworks for validity evidence; however, only 30.0% reported more than two items of these frameworks. Contemporary frameworks for validity evidence, considered the preferred standard, were only (partly) applied in three studies. Conclusions: Multiple assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation have been reported, most lack proper validity evidence. There is a clear need for further research and development of a comprehensive, up-to-date, properly validated, and widely applicable assessment tool to support high-quality training, reliable assessment, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

AssessmentNeonatal resuscitationPerformanceReliabilityValidation

Identifiers

PMID42005614
PMCPMC13090731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.