ReviewJournal of global health2026
Postnatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool.
Review in Journal of global health, 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.
- Antenatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool.Journal of global health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The period immediately after birth represents a highly vulnerable time for newborns, particularly in contexts without access to high-quality secondary care for small and/or sick newborns. Scaling up existing evidence-based interventions can avert much of the mortality and morbidity that occurs during the neonatal period. We summarise the evidence for interventions delivered postnatally and propose a set of effect estimates for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Methods: We first conducted a set of systematic reviews and updates on the most recent evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of interventions for reducing neonatal mortality and associated risk factors. We then assessed the evidence using standardised set of considerations alongside an iterative consultation process with newborn care experts to determine whether and how new meta-analysed effect estimates could be incorporated into the LiST model, as well as which of these estimates should be updated and which should be retained. Results: We proposed a new set of interventions that involve three packages of newborn care: a basic package (i.e. primary/community, secondary hospital care), a referral care package (i.e. tertiary care), and a package of promising innovative interventions whose evidence base is still developing. We included five new interventions within the updated LiST model's basic and referral packages: nasal continuous positive airway pressure coupled with preterm supportive care, newborn referral and transportation, animal-derived surfactant, prophylactic antifungals, and antibiotic stewardship. Three new interventions were proposed for the innovation package: magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection in asphyxiated newborns, topical emollient therapy, and probiotics/synbiotics for hospitalised preterm newborns. Conclusions: We synthesised the evidence base for the impact of a package of effective postnatal interventions for neonates for an updated LiST model. The new interventions and updated effect estimates can provide more accurate projections of potential impacts on neonatal survival for different intervention coverage scale-up scenarios in low- and middle-income countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42825351What 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.