ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Consistency of definitions used in International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support documents.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) disseminates scientific evidence reviews and neonatal resuscitation treatment recommendations through its Neonatal Life Support Task Force. Clear and consistent terminology is essential when developing clinical guidelines for international stakeholders. The objective of this study was to assess the consistency of the terms and definitions used in Neonatal Life Support Task Force documents related to participants, interventions and outcomes. Methods: Investigators manually searched four types of Neonatal Life Support Task Force documents, including (1) protocols for reviews and (2) treatment recommendations published since 2019, (3) 2020 consensus outcome ratings, and (4) 2023 guidelines for uniform reporting for resuscitation-related terminology. Only terms defined in at least two documents were included. Investigators from the Neonatal Life Support Task Force and invited content experts reviewed the included terms and definitions for consistency. Results: A total of 227 unique resuscitation terms with explicit definitions were extracted from 67documents. After exclusion of 164 terms defined in only a single document, the definitions of 63 terms were assessed for consistency. The definitions of 23 (37%) terms were judged to be similar across documents. The remaining terms had inconsistencies in definitions used for the same term or for similar constructs using different terms. Conclusion: Greater consistency of terminology within Neonatal Life Support Task Force documents has the potential to improve communication between researchers, clinicians, and educators. Additionally, variation in terminology may hinder evidence synthesis in systematic reviews. Efforts to develop consensus definitions for terms used in ILCOR documents are needed.
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.