Post-Asphyxial Aftercare and Management of Neonates in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Effective post-resuscitation care is crucial for improving outcomes in neonates post-asphyxia. This review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of post-asphyxial aftercare strategies and forms part of a supplement describing an extensive synthesis of effective newborn interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Evidence was generated by performing de novo reviews, updates to reviews via systematic searches, and reanalyses of studies conducted in LMICs from existing reviews. RESULTS: Sixty-one trials recruiting 5,046 term infants post-asphyxia were included across all intervention domains. Limited studies were available from LMICs related to fluid restriction, antiseizure medications, and early interventions to improve developmental outcomes. Our reanalysis of whole-body cooling trials in LMICs found effects on neonatal mortality and mortality or neurological disability in infancy differed significantly based on the care center and type of cooling device used. Pharmacological therapies for neuroprotection evaluated in 27 trials in middle-income countries had varied effects in neonates with encephalopathy. Majority of the trials (60%) focused on magnesium sulfate therapy and showed significant improvements in short-term mortality and morbidities. CONCLUSION: The sample sizes of included trials were relatively small, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Evidence on long-term survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes was limited. Further research on promising neuroprotective therapies and factors affecting their implementation in low-resource contexts is required. To reduce the high burden related to asphyxia in LMICs, this review underscores the need for a paradigm shift toward prevention, and strategies that emphasize improving antenatal and obstetric care. INTRODUCTION: Effective post-resuscitation care is crucial for improving outcomes in neonates post-asphyxia. This review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of post-asphyxial aftercare strategies and forms part of a supplement describing an extensive synthesis of effective newborn interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Evidence was generated by performing de novo reviews, updates to reviews via systematic searches, and reanalyses of studies conducted in LMICs from existing reviews. RESULTS: Sixty-one trials recruiting 5,046 term infants post-asphyxia were included across all intervention domains. Limited studies were available from LMICs related to fluid restriction, antiseizure medications, and early interventions to improve developmental outcomes. Our reanalysis of whole-body cooling trials in LMICs found effects on neonatal mortality and mortality or neurological disability in infancy differed significantly based on the care center and type of cooling device used. Pharmacological therapies for neuroprotection evaluated in 27 trials in middle-income countries had varied effects in neonates with encephalopathy. Majority of the trials (60%) focused on magnesium sulfate therapy and showed significant improvements in short-term mortality and morbidities. CONCLUSION: The sample sizes of included trials were relatively small, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Evidence on long-term survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes was limited. Further research on promising neuroprotective therapies and factors affecting their implementation in low-resource contexts is required. To reduce the high burden related to asphyxia in LMICs, this review underscores the need for a paradigm shift toward prevention, and strategies that emphasize improving antenatal and obstetric care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".