ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2026
A comparative study of two scoring systems for the assessment of neonatal abstinence syndrome.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 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
objectiveThis study compares the Finnegan Score and NASSCORES for assessing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), focusing on interrater reliability (IRR), accuracy, and provider preference. STUDY
designThis prospective study involved 75 neonatal providers who assessed two standardized videos of newborns with NAS using both the Finnegan score and NASSCORES. Participants scored each video with both tools and completed a Likert-based preference survey. Intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1) was used to measure IRR.
resultNASSCORES showed a higher IRR compared with the Finnegan score and greater scoring accuracy for both videos. Most neonatal providers favored NASSCORES for faster computation, easier use, better treatment guidance, and overall satisfaction, with fewer concerns about its clinical utility.
conclusionNASSCORES outperformed Finnegan Score in this standardized video study, indicating its potential as a more practical scoring tool for NAS. Further validation in clinical settings is recommended.
Identifiers
42386901What 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.