ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Decision-Making at the Limit of Viability in Newborns: Insights from a Survey of Medical Professionals.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Legal definitions of human viability vary worldwide. BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe treatment of periviable newborns remains controversial and raises ethical concerns. However, currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) sets the lower limit of viability at 22 weeks of gestation or 500 g birth weight. The aim of our research was to determine the knowledge of healthcare practitioners in our country regarding this topic, as well as including a course after which we sought to evaluate whether their perceptions regarding the management of these cases changed.
methodsThe recruitment of participants encompassed those who voluntarily took part in the survey, and 30 clinicians were included; they participated in a 30 h online course and completed a survey questionnaire before and after the course.
resultsAfter Holm adjustment, we observed an improvement in participants' perceptions regarding recommendations concerning a multidisciplinary approach, perinatal counseling (20.0% vs. 100.0%), ethical issues (16.7% vs. 93.3%), and awareness of national guidelines (36.7% vs. 100.0%). Moreover, they recognized the importance of including parental wishes in decision-making (Holm-adjusted
conclusionsEthically grounded strategies to guide the management of newborns at the limit of viability is of great importance, whereby gestational age is an insufficient parameter. A collaborative, multidisciplinary process is mandatory in order to ensure the best outcomes for the newborn. The value of continuing medical education should be acknowledged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.