Duration of Resuscitation at Birth, Mortality, and Neurodevelopment: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force reviewed evidence for the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for newborns immediately after birth. OBJECTIVE: To summarize evidence for ongoing CPR on the outcomes of survival, neurodevelopment, and the composite of survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scientific Electronic Library Online were searched between inception and February 29, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers selected studies of newborns with at least 10 minutes of asystole, bradycardia, or pulseless electrical activity for which CPR is indicated. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and appraised the risk of bias. RESULTS: In 16 eligible studies, researchers reported outcomes of 579 newborns born between 1982 and 2017. Within individual studies, 2% to 100% of infants survived to last follow-up (hospital discharge through 12 years). Summarized across studies, 237 of 579 (40.9%) newborns survived to last follow-up. In 13 studies, researchers reported neurodevelopmental outcomes of 277 newborns. Of these, 30 of 277 (10.8%) survived without moderate or severe impairment, and 240 of 277 (87%) met the composite outcome of death or NDI (191 died and 49 survived with moderate or severe impairment). LIMITATIONS: There was very low certainty of evidence because of risk of bias and inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS: Infants with ongoing CPR at 10 minutes after birth are at high risk for mortality and neurodisability, but survival without moderate or severe NDI is possible. One specified duration of CPR is unlikely to uniformly predict survival or survival without neuroimpairment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".