ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
From "can we treat?" to "should we treat?": a narrative review on resuscitation limits at the threshold of viability.
Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decision-Making at the Limit of Viability in Newborns: Insights from a Survey of Medical Professionals.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in perinatal and neonatal care have progressively lowered the threshold of viability and improved survival among extremely preterm infants (EPIs). However, this increase in survival has not consistently been accompanied by comparable improvements in neurological outcomes, which in a relevant proportion of cases remain poor. This discrepancy generates the ethical dilemma of deciding whether to proceed with active resuscitation at the margins of viability. Historically, decisions have relied heavily on gestational age (GA), yet this single parameter has proven insufficient. PURPOSE: This narrative review examines the conceptual and practical challenges in determining the limit of active resuscitation and explores how healthcare professionals and international scientific and bioethical committees have addressed this issue, as well as how families experience and cope with it.
resultsEvidence demonstrates that multiple fetal and pregnancy-related factors significantly influence survival and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, outperforming GA alone. Simultaneously, clinicians and families are confronted with prognostic uncertainty, psychological burdens, and cognitive biases that complicate decision-making. In this context, shared decision-making emerges not as a simple transfer of information, but as an interpretative process centered on the newborn's best interests.
conclusionNo universal gestational threshold can determine when resuscitation should or should not be initiated. Rather, the "limit" is best understood as a case-specific decision point, shaped by prognosis, parental values, ethical judgment, and clinical feasibility. Future efforts should focus not on eliminating the grey area, but on developing ethically grounded strategies for navigating it responsibly, compassionately, and with intellectual humility. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Gestational age alone is widely used to guide resuscitation decisions, but it is an imprecise and insufficient parameter. • Multiple clinical and perinatal factors significantly influence prognosis. WHAT IS NEW: • The limit of resuscitation is context-dependent, shaped by prognosis, parental values, and ethical judgment. • Shared decision-making is not just information sharing, but a collaborative process to determine the newborn's best interests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41484475What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.