MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307429885 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00479

Timing of neonatal mortality and severe morbidity during the postnatal period: a systematic review

2022· review· en· W4307429885 on OpenAlexafffund
Justine Dol, Brianna Hughes, Mercedes Bonet, Rachel Dorey, Jon Dorling, Amy Grant, Étienne V Langlois, Joelle Monaghan, Rachel Ollivier, Robin Parker, Nathalie Roos, Heather Scott, Hwayeon Danielle Shin, Janet Curran

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)Izaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUNICEFWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineCritical appraisalCINAHLMEDLINEPopulationPediatricsMeta-analysisSystematic reviewData extractionIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionAlternative medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific neonatal mortality and severe morbidity during the postnatal period (1-28 days). INTRODUCTION: Despite significant focus on improving neonatal outcomes, many newborns continue to die or experience adverse health outcomes. While evidence on neonatal mortality and severe morbidity rates and causes are regularly updated, less is known on the specific timing of when they occur in the neonatal period. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies that reported on neonatal mortality daily in the first week; weekly in the first month; or day 1, days 2-7, and days 8-28. It also considered studies that reported on timing of severe neonatal morbidity. Studies that reported solely on preterm or high-risk infants were excluded, as these infants require specialized care. Due to the available evidence, mixed samples were included (eg, both preterm and full-term infants), reflecting a neonatal population that may include both low-risk and high-risk infants. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for published studies on December 20, 2019, and updated on May 10, 2021. Critical appraisal was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by 2 reviewers using a study-specific data extraction form. All conflicts were resolved through consensus or discussion with a third reviewer. Where possible, quantitative data were pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Where statistical pooling was not possible, findings were reported narratively. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies from 36 articles reported on relevant outcomes. Of the 48 studies that reported on timing of mortality, there were 6,760,731 live births and 47,551 neonatal deaths with timing known. Of the 34 studies that reported daily deaths in the first week, the highest proportion of deaths occurred on the first day (first 24 hours, 38.8%), followed by day 2 (24-48 hours, 12.3%). Considering weekly mortality within the first month (n = 16 studies), the first week had the highest mortality (71.7%). Based on data from 46 studies, the highest proportion of deaths occurred on day 1 (39.5%), followed closely by days 2-7 (36.8%), with the remainder occurring between days 8 and 28 (23.0%). In terms of causes, birth asphyxia accounted for the highest proportion of deaths on day 1 (68.1%), severe infection between days 2 and 7 (48.1%), and diarrhea between days 8 and 28 (62.7%). Due to heterogeneity, neonatal morbidity data were described narratively. The mean critical appraisal score of all studies was 84% (SD = 16%). CONCLUSION: Newborns experience high mortality throughout the entire postnatal period, with the highest mortality rate in the first week, particularly on the first day. Ensuring regular high-quality postnatal visits, particularly within the first week after birth, is paramount to reduce neonatal mortality and severe morbidity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207