ReviewResuscitation plus2026
Assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation and their validity evidence: a scoping review.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment tools for neonatal resuscitation and their validity evidence: a scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.