ReviewMaternal health, neonatology and perinatology2026
Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology towards a standardized outcome set for clinical trials in Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn (HDFN): preliminary findings from two European advisory boards.
Review in Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn (HDFN) remains a serious perinatal condition worldwide despite major advances in antenatal and postnatal care. A key gap in HDFN research is the absence of a standardized outcome set, leading to inconsistent reporting and limited comparability across studies identified during systematic literature review (SLR). Outcomes important to families, such as long-term neurodevelopment and emotional impact, are often overlooked. 2 separate European advisory boards with 7 HDFN experts were conducted to explore expert perspectives on outcomes that may inform future core outcome set (COS) development. The findings should be interpreted as a preliminary, descriptive outcome prioritization exercise rather than a finalized COS, as no joint consensus meeting, Delphi process, pre-specified consensus threshold, or patient/parent involvement was undertaken. Establishing a formal COS through a structured multi-stakeholder process could enhance research quality, support future evidence generation, and promote more consistent care.Clinical trial number: Not applicable.
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.