Dempsey, Eugene 1; Dempsey, Eugene 1 2; Pammi, Mohan 3; Ryan, Anthony C 1 2; Barrington, Keith J 4
- Review Group Information:
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This document is a Academic Journal
Review first published in Issue 9, 2015.
Protocol first published in Issue 5, 2011.
This version first published online: 04 September 2015 in Issue 9, 2015.
- Update Information:
Publication Status: New in Issue 9, 2015
Most recent changes:
Information not supplied by reviewer.
Mohan Pammi 3; firstname.lastname@example.org
1Cork University Maternity Hospital, Neonatology, Wilton, Ireland,
2University College Cork, Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, Cork, Ireland,
3Baylor College of Medicine, Section of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, 6621, Fannin, MC.WT 6‐104, Houston, TX, USA, 77030
4CHU Ste‐Justine, Department of Pediatrics, 3175 Cote Ste Catherine, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3T 1C5
- Sources of Support:
Intramural sources of support: No sources of support supplied.
Extramural sources of support: No sources of support supplied.
Background: Approximately 10% of all newborns require resuscitation at birth. Training healthcare providers in standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programmes may improve neonatal outcomes. Substantial healthcare resources are expended on SFNRT. Objectives: To determine whether SFNRT programmes reduce neonatal mortality and morbidity, improve acquisition and retention of knowledge and skills, or change teamwork and resuscitation behaviour. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, ongoing trials and conference proceedings in April 2014 and updated in March 2015. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi‐randomised trials including cluster‐randomised trials, comparing a SFNRT with no SFNRT, additions to SFNRT or types of SFNRT, and reporting at least one of our specified outcomes. Data collection and analysis: Two authors extracted data independently and performed statistical analyses including typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) (all with 95% confidence intervals (CI)). We analysed cluster‐randomised trials using the generic inverse variance and the approximate analysis methods. Main results: We identified two community‐based and three manikin‐based trials that assessed the effect of SFNRT compared with no SFNRT. Very low quality evidence from one study suggested improvement in acquisition of knowledge (RR 5.96, 95% CI 3.60 to 9.87) and skills (RR 170, 95% CI 10.8 to 2711) and retention of knowledge (RR 3.60, 95% CI 2.43 to 5.35) and the other study suggested improvement in resuscitation and behavioural scores. We identified three community‐based cluster‐randomised trials in developing countries comparing SFNRT with basic resuscitation training (Early Newborn Care). In this setting, there was moderate quality evidence that SFNRT decreased early neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 3 studies, 66,162 neonates) and when analysed by the approximate analysis method (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; RD ‐0.0044, 95% CI ‐0.0082 to ‐0.0006; NNTB 227, 95% CI 122 to 1667). Low quality evidence from one trial showed that SFNRT may decrease 28‐day mortality (typical RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91) but the effect on late neonatal mortality was more uncertain (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11). None of our a priori defined neonatal morbidities were reported. We did not identify any randomised studies in the developed world. We identified two trials that compared SFNRT with team training to SFNRT. Teamwork training of physician trainees with simulation may increase any teamwork behaviour (assessed by frequency) (MD 2.41, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.11) and decrease resuscitation duration (MD ‐149.54, 95% CI ‐214.73 to ‐84.34) but may lead to little or no difference in Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) scores (MD 1.40, 95% CI ‐2.02 to 4.82; 98 participants, low quality evidence). We identified two trials that compared SFNRT with booster courses to SFNRT. It is uncertain whether booster courses improve retention of resuscitation knowledge (84 participants, very low quality evidence) but may improve procedural and behavioural skills (40 participants, very low quality evidence). We identified two trials on decision support tools, one on a cognitive aid that did not change resuscitation scores and the other on an electronic decision support tool that improved the frequency of correct decision making on positive pressure ventilation, cardiac compressions and frequency of fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) adjustments (97 participants, very low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions: SFNRT compared to basic newborn care or basic newborn resuscitation, in developing countries, results in a reduction of early neonatal and 28‐day mortality. Randomised trials of SFNRT should report on neonatal morbidity including hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Innovative educational methods that enhance knowledge and skills and teamwork behaviour should be evaluated.
Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
- Medical Subject Headings(MeSH):
Program Evaluation /*standards
Decision Support Techniques
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
This record should be cited as: Dempsey, Eugene, Dempsey, Eugene, Pammi, Mohan, Ryan, Anthony C, Barrington, Keith J. Standardised formal resuscitation training programmes for reducing mortality and morbidity in newborn infants. (Protocol) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD009106. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009106.pub2.
- Accession Number: