Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42027799›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2026

How consistent are recent neonatal resuscitation guidelines?

Ilari Kuitunen, Peter G Davis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ilari KuitunenUniversity of Eastern Finland, Institute of Clinical Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, Kuopio, Finland.
Peter G DavisUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Approximately 10% of neonates require respiratory or cardiovascular support at birth, making evidence-based neonatal resuscitation guidelines critical to clinical practice. Methods: This narrative review compares the most recent neonatal resuscitation guidelines published by the American Heart Association/American Academy of Pediatrics (AHA/AAP), the Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation (ANZCOR), and the European Resuscitation Council (ERC), all derived from the 2025 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommendations. Results: While the three guidelines share common foundations, some notable differences exist in the method of grading and transparency of assessment of evidence certainty, and strength of recommendations. Key comparisons include umbilical cord management, airway and ventilation strategies, oxygen use, vascular access, and pharmacologic interventions during resuscitation. All guidelines recommend delayed cord clamping in vigorous infants, discourage routine airway suctioning for meconium-stained fluid, and support ventilation within 60 s of delivery when indicated. However, recommendations diverge regarding intact cord stabilization, cord milking in extremely preterm infants, initial oxygen concentrations, ventilation parameters, and the use of devices such as video laryngoscopes, laryngeal mask airways, and high-flow nasal cannula. Conclusion: Although the AHA/AAP, ANZCOR, and ERC neonatal resuscitation guidelines are all derived from the same ILCOR evidence summaries, important differences exist in their structure, transparency, and specific clinical recommendations. In part, differences in recommendations are due to a paucity of evidence around specific interventions. Standardized methods of reporting certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations may help clinicians deliver consistent, effective delivery room care.

Identifiers

PMID42027799
PMCPMC13100290

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.