ELBW and ELGAN outcomes in developing nations–Systematic review and meta-analysis

Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy; Thangaraj Abiramalatha; Tapas Bandyopadhyay; Nasreen Banu Shaik; Prathik Bandiya; Debasish Nanda; Abdul Kareem Pullattayil S.; Srinivas Murki; Charles Christoph Roehr

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255352

Abstract

Context

Morbidity and mortality amongst extremely low birth weight (ELBW) and extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs) in developing nations has not been well studied.

Objectives

Evaluate survival until discharge, short- and long-term morbidities of ELBW and ELGANs in LMICs.

Data sources

CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.

Study selection

Prospective and retrospective observational studies were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Four authors extracted data independently. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to synthesize data, modified QUIPS scale to evaluate quality of studies and GRADE approach to ascertain the certainty of evidence (CoE).

Results

192 studies enrolling 22,278 ELBW and 18,338 ELGANs were included. Survival was 34% (95% CI: 31% - 37%) (CoE–low) for ELBW and 39% (34% - 44%) (CoE—moderate) for ELGANs. For ELBW neonates, the survival for low-income (LI), lower middle-income (LMI) and upper middle income (UMI) countries was 18% (11% - 28%), 28% (21% - 35%) and 39% (36% - 42%), respectively. For ELGANs, it was 13% (8% - 20%) for LI, 28% (21% - 36%) for LMI and 48% (42% - 53%) for UMI countries. There was no difference in survival between two epochs: 2000–2009 and 2010–2020. Except for necrotising enterocolitis [ELBW and ELGANs—8% (7% - 10%)] and periventricular leukomalacia [ELBW—7% (4% - 11%); ELGANs—6% (5%-7%)], rates of all other morbidities were higher compared to developed nations. Rates of neurodevelopmental impairment was 17% (7% - 34%) in ELBW neonates and 29% (23% - 37%) in ELGANs.

Limitations

CoE was very low to low for all secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Mortality and morbidity amongst ELBW and ELGANs is still a significant burden in LMICs. CoE was very low to low for all the secondary outcomes, emphasizing the need for high quality prospective cohort studies.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42020222873).

Citation: Ramaswamy VV, Abiramalatha T, Bandyopadhyay T, Shaik NB, Bandiya P, Nanda D, et al. (2021) ELBW and ELGAN outcomes in developing nations–Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0255352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352

Editor: Harald Ehrhardt, Center of Pediatrics, GERMANY

Received: February 24, 2021; Accepted: July 15, 2021; Published: August 5, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Ramaswamy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: BPD, Bronchopulmonary dysplasia; CoE, Certainty of evidence; ELBW, Extremely low birth weight; ELGANs, Extremely low gestational age neonates; EUGR, Extrauterine growth retardation; HICs, High income countries; IVH, Intraventricular hemorrhage; LMICs, Low- and middle-income countries; MA, Meta-analysis; NEC, Necrotising enterocolitis; NDI, Neurodevelopmental impairment; NMR, Neonatal mortality rate; PDA, Patent ductus arteriosus; PMA, Post-menstrual age; PVL, Periventricular leukomalacia; ROB, Risk of bias; ROP, Retinopathy of prematurity; SR, Systematic review; SDG, Sustainable Development Goals; VLBW, Very low birth weight

Introduction

Prematurity is one of the leading causes of childhood mortality, rates of which are on the rise across the globe [1–4]. Available data indicate that about 80% of the preterm births happen in the geographical regions of Africa and South Asia [2, 3]. When countries are grouped by their World Bank income categories, it is found that approximately 90% of all preterm births occurs in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). The average preterm birth rate for LMICs is close to 9–12%, compared to approximately 9% for most of high‐income countries (HICs) [4].

The quantum of impact on decreasing the neonatal mortality rate (NMR) is more pronounced when community based interventions targeting the late preterm and term neonates are implemented successfully across LMICs [1]. It is estimated that about 80% of neonatal deaths can be thwarted in LMICs by achieving a 95% coverage rate of simple neonatal interventions such as neonatal resuscitation, avoiding hypothermia, clean cord practices, kangaroo mother care as well as supporting breast feeding, clubbed with antenatal practices [1]. Henceforth, higher level NICU care targeting extremely low birth weight (ELBW) neonates with a birth weight of less than 1000 grams and extremely low gestational age neonates (ELGANs) born at less than 28 weeks’ gestation might not be a priority as of now in many LMICs.

Every Newborn action plan by WHO envisages reducing national NMR to 12 per 1000 live births by the year 2030 [5]. Historical trends of NMR from developed nations reveal that once a NMR of 15 per 1000 live births is attained, augmenting community based health programmes with facility based neonatal care through establishment of higher level NICUs would facilitate achieving single digit NMR in LMICs [6]. Improved survival rates amongst ELBW and ELGANs in LMICs with such an approach might also be associated with increased rates of typical morbidities of prematurity, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and long term neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) [7–10]. While previous systematic reviews have tried to quantify the burden of mortality and morbidity in high risk neonates including preterm infants from LMICs, none have been published till date with exclusive focus on the particularly vulnerable group of ELBW neonates and ELGANs [11–13]. Assessing the burden of mortality and morbidity in these infants is vital in developing future newborn targeted health interventions and policies, especially for those LMICs that are transitioning from community based care to a facility based one. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to study the survival, short- and long-term outcomes of ELGANs and ELBW neonates from LMICs.

Methods

The protocol for the systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222873) [14]. The reporting of the review is in accordance with PRISMA guidelines [15].

Literature search

Electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 1^st January 2000 till 21^st November 2020. There were no language restrictions. Google translate (California, USA) was used for translating non-English literature. Studies published in Urdu and Persian were translated with the help of a translator as there were some limitations in Google translate for these languages. Studies published as abstracts were also eligible for inclusion. Only published data was used in this systematic review. Four authors (TA, NBS and PB, DN) conducted the literature search independently in pairs of two using Rayyan-QCRI software [16]. The search strategy for the different databases is provided in S1 Table in S1 File.

Inclusion criteria

Retrospective as well as prospective observational studies that had reported on outcomes of ELGANs (born at less than 28 weeks’ of gestation) and / or ELBW neonates (birth weight of less than 1000 grams) from a LMIC as per the World Bank country classifications by income levels (2020) were eligible for inclusion [17]. Randomized controlled trials were excluded as certain ELGANs and ELBW neonates who would otherwise have been eligible for inclusion might have been excluded due to a variety of reasons such as stringent inclusion criteria, refusal of consent and presence of co-morbid conditions among others.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of the review was proportion of neonates who had survived until discharge. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (> grade II) [18], periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) (any severity), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (stage II or more) [19], PDA requiring surgical or medical treatment, BPD [oxygen requirement at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age (PMA)], sepsis (early onset and late onset sepsis) diagnosed based on blood culture as well as on other blood markers, ROP (any ROP, ROP stage ≥ 2 as per ICROP classification [20], ROP requiring laser therapy or intravitreal bevacizumab), extrauterine growth retardation (EUGR) (defined as weight less than 10^th centile at 36 weeks’ PMA), any NDI (as defined by authors) and cerebral palsy of any severity, both assessed at 18–24 months’ corrected age.

Risk of bias (ROB) assessment

The risk of bias assessment was done using a modified QUIPS scale [21]. Four parameters namely, representativeness of the sample, definition and assessment of the outcomes, evaluation of baseline characteristics of the enrolled subjects known to affect the outcomes and method of data collection were evaluated. Studies that had satisfied all the four criteria were classified as having a low risk of bias. Those fulfilling two or three criteria were adjudged as having an intermediate risk of bias and those satisfying one or none were classified as high risk of bias studies. Two authors (TA, NBS) evaluated the risk of bias independently. Disagreements were resolved by consulting a third author (VVR).

Data collection and synthesis

The data for relevant outcomes were extracted using a pre-specified proforma by two authors independently (PB, DN). Statistical analysis was done using the R-Software. Meta-analysis of proportions was used for synthesis of data. Raw data was used if the proportions were between 0.20 to 0.80. Otherwise, data was logit transformed. Freeman-Tukey Double arcsine transformation of data was preferred over logit transformation when there were many proportions with 0 or 1 values. ‘Metaprop’ package in R-software was used for meta-analysis of proportions. ‘Metaprop’ can analysis meta-analysis of raw data based on proportions as well as convert raw data to logit transformation or Freeman-Tukey Double arcsine transformation and re-transform to proportions by default for meaningful interpretation. A random effects model was chosen as significant heterogeneity was anticipated as reported in prior studies on newborn survival [22]. An inverse variance method was chosen with DerSimonian Liard estimator being used for assessing between study variance [23]. The final estimates were expressed as proportions with 95% confidence interval.

Certainty of evidence (CoE) assessment

CoE was assessed using a modified GRADE approach [24]. Outcomes from prospective studies started as high quality evidence and other type of studies as low. The parameters of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias were evaluated for downgrading the evidence further. I² value was used to adjudge significant heterogeneity. Imprecision was evaluated based on the point estimate and the 95% confidence interval. If these were to cross a decision threshold to intervene, the CoE was downgraded by one level for imprecision. Though publication bias assessment in meta-analysis of prognosis studies is a contentious topic, we assessed publication bias using funnel plots and Begg’s rank test based on GRADE working group guidelines [24, 25].

Sensitivity analyses

The following sensitivity analyses were performed for the primary outcome

Categorizing studies from countries based on three income levels–low income (LI), lower middle-income (LMI) and upper middle-income (UMI).
Categorizing studies based on geographical regions where they are situated.
Excluding studies with low sample size (less than 50 subjects).
Comparison of survival between two time periods—epoch 1: 2000–2009 and epoch 2: 2010–2019.
Analyzing studies which had evaluated neonates with varying baseline sickness.

Results

A total of 21,535 studies were identified from the literature search, of which 2157 full texts were assessed for eligibility after removal of duplicates as well as title, abstract screening and 192 studies (ELBW neonates– 22,278; ELGANs– 18,338) were included in the final synthesis (S1 File references 1–192). The PRISMA flow is given in Fig 1. Ninety-two studies with 13,667 ELBW and sixty studies enrolling 8,412 ELGANs had reported on the primary outcome measure of survival until discharge. The included studies were predominantly from middle-income countries. Studies from twenty-four countries situated in six geographical regions namely, Asia, Africa, Europe, Middle East, North America and South America had reported on survival for ELGANs. Similarly, studies from thirty-one countries located in seven different geographical regions (aforementioned regions along with Caribbean) had reported on survival for ELBW neonates. There was a preponderance of studies published from Brazil, China, India, Iran and South Africa. The denominator of the primary outcome measure (live births versus NICU admissions) and level of NICU care were inconsistently reported. Only five studies with 273 ELGANs and ELBW neonates had assessed the long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes at 24 months’ corrected age. The characteristics of included studies is given in Table 1.

Download:

Fig 1. PRISMA flow.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.g001

Download:

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.t001

Risk of bias

52 studies had a high risk of bias, 131 studies had an intermediate risk of bias and only 7 studies had a low risk of bias. Risk of bias was unclear in two studies. Only 31 studies had described the baseline characteristics of the neonates known to affect the survival and other morbidities such as receipt of antenatal corticosteroids, gender, small for gestational age (SGA) Status, Apgar scores and Level of NICU care. 83 studies had a prospective study design. The risk of bias of included studies is given in S2 Table in S1 File.

Primary outcome

1a. Survival until discharge for ELBW neonates.

The overall survival was 34% (95% CI: 31% - 37%). There was significant heterogeneity in the survival rates between studies. Sub-group analysis to address the heterogeneity was done by analyzing studies based on the income status, region and country of origin. While there were widely varying survival rates between countries of similar economic status as well as region of origin, it was much lesser when studies were analyzed according to the country of origin.

For ELBW neonates, the survival for LI, LMI and UMI countries was 18% (11% - 28%), 28% (21% - 35%) and 39% (36% - 42%), respectively (S1 and S2 Figs in S1 File). While most of the countries from the African subcontinent had a survival rate of less than 20%, single center studies from Benin, Eritrea, South Africa and Tanzania reported better survival rates of more than 40% for ELBW neonates. While single center studies from China and India had reported survival rates of more than 60%, it was much lesser from the other Asian countries. While the countries from South America had a reported survival of 39% - 48%, the only middle-income country from North America, Mexico had a survival rate of 43% (37% - 49%). Amongst the countries from the Middle East, Turkey had the highest survival rate of 43% (31% - 57%). Country-wise survival outcomes for ELBW neonates is given in Fig 2. Publication bias was detected for this outcome (S3 Fig in S1 File)

Download:

Fig 2. Survival until discharge for ELBW neonates based on country of origin.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.g002

1b. Survival until discharge for ELGANs.

Survival until discharge was 39% (34% - 44%). It was 13% (8% - 20%) for LI, 28% (21% - 36%) for LMI and 48% (42% - 53%) for UMI countries. Similar to ELBW survival, there was considerable variation between countries of similar economic classification and geographic region (S4-S6 Figs in S1 File) Single-center outlier studies from Benin, China, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey had reported relatively higher survival of more than 60% when compared to other countries (Fig 3). The survival as assessed by synthesizing data from multiple studies was highest in China [61% (53% - 68%)].

Download:

Fig 3. Survival until discharge for ELGANs based on country of origin.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.g003

Secondary outcomes

Short-term and long-term neurological outcomes.

2a. Severe IVH and PVL. The rate of severe IVH and PVL in ELBW neonates was 14% (9% - 20%) and 7% (4% - 11%), respectively. For ELGANs, while the overall rate of severe IVH was 14% (11% - 19%). it was 6% (5% - 7%) for PVL (S7-S11 Figs in S1 File).

2b. CP and NDI assessed at 24 months’ corrected age. Only one study had reported NDI outcome for ELBW neonates which was 17% (7% - 34%). Meta-analysis of five studies revealed a NDI prevalence of 29% (23% - 37%) for ELGANs. The prevalence of CP in ELGAN population was 3% (1% - 9%) (S12-S14 Figs in S1 File)

Cardio-respiratory outcomes.

3a. PDA. There was considerable variation in the reported rates of PDA requiring intervention between countries which was 15% (7% - 30%) for ELBW neonates and 50% (35% - 65%) for ELGANs (S15-S19 Figs in S1 File).

3b. Requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation. Higher rates of requirement of mechanical ventilation was reported from China which was 78% (65% - 92%) for ELBW neonates and 75% (65% - 84%) for ELGANs (S20 and S21 Figs in S1 File)

3c. BPD assessed as oxygen requirement at 36 weeks’ PMA. For ELBW neonates, BPD prevalence was 39% (30% - 48%). One study from South Africa had reported a relatively lower rate of 17% (6% - 33%). The overall prevalence of BPD was 37% (29% - 47%) in ELGANs. Three centers from China, India and Turkey had reported a higher rate of more than 60% (S22-S25 Figs in S1 File).

Sepsis.

The rates of any sepsis and culture proven sepsis in ELBW neonates was 37% (28% - 48%) and 28% (21% - 35%), respectively. Rates of any and culture proven sepsis in ELGANs was 40% (25% - 57%) and 21% (12% - 32%), respectively (S26-S31 Figs in S1 File).

NEC stage II or more.

The rates of NEC were uniform across countries with its prevalence being 8% (7% - 10%) for ELBW neonates as well as ELGANs. Publication bias was detected for studies reporting on NEC in ELBW neonates (S32-S35 Figs in S1 File).

EUGR.

Two studies from the African sub-continent had reported on EUGR rates in ELBW neonates which was 88% (80% - 93%) (S36 Fig in S1 File).

ROP.

Amongst ELBW neonates, any stage ROP, severe ROP and ROP requiring intervention rates was 49% (42% - 55%), 24% (19% - 30%) and 18% (12% - 27%), respectively. One study each from India, Iran and Pakistan had reported severe ROP rate of more than 50%. Also, some reports from China, Turkey and Jordan had ROP requiring intervention rates of more than 30%.

In ELGANs, any stage ROP, severe ROP and ROP requiring intervention was reported in 53% (46% - 59%), 22% (16% - 30%) and 20% (13% - 29%) of neonates, respectively. Single center reports from Thailand and Brazil had rates exceeding 40%.

Data related to ROP is given in S37-S48 Figs in S1 File.

Sensitivity analyses.

4a. Excluding studies with low sample size. Analysis of survival outcome after excluding studies with low sample size did not result in any significant changes in the effect estimate when compared to the primary analysis for both ELBW neonates and ELGANs (S49 and S50 Figs in S1 File).

4b. Comparison of survival between epoch 1: 2000–2009 and epoch 2: 2010–2019. There was no significant difference in the survival rates between the two epochs for ELBW neonates (Test of moderators p value– 0.83) and ELGANs. (Test of moderators p value– 0.78) (S51 and S52 Figs in S1 File).

4c. Analysing studies which had evaluated neonates with varying baseline sickness. While of most of the studies were single centre studies, survival rates were reported by five studies for ELBW neonates and ELGANs with RDS. ELBW survival was 33% (20% - 50%) and ELGANs survival was 37% (28% - 47%) for RDS. While 41% (28% - 56%) of ELBW neonates who underwent invasive ventilation survived, the survival rate was 23% (9% - 48%) for ELGANs.

Certainty of evidence

CoE for the primary outcome measure of survival until discharge for ELGANs was moderate and for ELBW neonates was low. While most of the included studies reporting on the primary outcome measure were prospective in design and started with high CoE, they were downgraded for serious inconsistency by one level. The outcome of survival until discharge for ELBW neonates was further downgraded by one level for publication bias. The CoE for other secondary outcomes were very low to low, with retrospective study design and heterogeneity being reasons for downgrading the CoE. The CoE is given in Table 2.

Download:

Table 2. Certainty of evidence for the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes for ELBW neonates and ELGANs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.t002

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 192 studies (ELBW neonates– 22,278; ELGANs– 18,338) from LMICs situated in different geographical regions across the globe. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only systematic review evaluating survival and morbidities in ELGANs or ELBW neonates from LMICs.

The primary outcome of the review was the proportion of neonates who had survived until discharge. The results of this study indicate that the overall survival until discharge of ELBW neonates was 34% and ELGANs was 39%, with significant heterogeneity between studies based on the income status, region as well as country of origin. These survival rates are much lower than that reported from HICs [22]. Myrhaug et al. in their meta-analysis (2019) had reported a survival rate of 74% at 25 weeks’ and 90% at 27 weeks’ amongst neonates born alive in HICs [22]. Such stark differences in survival between LMICs and HICs can be explained by many reasons. Attitudes towards providing life-saving intervention to these immature infants are quite different between LMICs and HICs. In LMICs, the focus of healthcare programmes to reduce NMR comprise predominantly of cost-effective high impact interventions comprising of early essential newborn care services which are predominantly targeted to address mortality in relatively bigger neonates [6, 26]. Decreasing mortality rates in ELGANs in LMICs through establishment of higher level NICUs might impose further financial burden as well as risk of inequity, diverting resources from the relatively more mature neonates. Further, absence of healthcare insurance schemes in LMICs result in financial constraints for parents who eventually have to bear most of the costs incurred [27]. Finally, ‘denominator bias’ due to lack of surveillance data and consequent inconsistent reporting from LMICs regarding live births versus NICU admissions might also result in significant variability in survival rates in LMICs when compared to HICs [28, 29].

There was significant variation in survival between LMICs as well. Similar findings are also seen in the studies published from HICs [30]. While some studies from HICs have pointed out factors such as differing gestational age cut-offs for instituting active care, selective versus comprehensive care and variations in clinical care practices for babies born at less than 25 weeks’ gestation being some of the reasons for varying survival rates between different countries, such comparative studies are lacking for LMICs [31–33]. Differing survival rates between studies from the same LMIC might be explained by the survival gap between rural and urban areas [34]. Whether there are any differences in survival between private versus public sector systems in LMICs still remains a contested topic, it was beyond the scope of our review to look into the same [35]. Differences in health policy, financial resources, access to and use of health services, infrastructure, and economic development might also explain the significant variability in survival between countries of similar economic status [36–38].

Sensitivity analysis indicated that there was no significant differences in the survival rates between the two epochs (epoch 1: 2000–2009 and epoch 2: 2010–2019). Similar findings were noted in the meta-analysis by Myrhaug et al. for HICs [22]. However, some neonatal network studies from other HICs have shown both an improving as well as static trend for survival in the past few decades [39–43]. The rates of some secondary outcomes such as NEC and PVL were comparable with data from HICs [40–42]. This might be due to the fact that many of the HICs provide active care for neonates born from 22 weeks’ gestation who are at the highest risk of major brain injury, whilst most of the ELBW neonates and ELGANs enrolled in studies from LMICs were of higher gestational ages ranging from 25–27 weeks [31, 33, 40, 44]. However, rates of all other morbidities were higher in LMICs when compared to HICs. Information from limited studies in the meta-analysis have shown that the rates of NDI was 17% (7% - 34%) and 29% (23% - 37%) in ELBW neonates and ELGANs, respectively. Milner et al. in their systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm VLBW neonates in resource limited settings had reported a lower NDI rate of 21.4% (11.6% - 30.8%) [12]. This could be because of the fact that Milner et al.’s study consisted of neonates who were gestationally more mature. Also, many studies from HICs such as Croatia, Korea, Poland and Taiwan were included in their study.

This systematic review had some limitations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the various outcome measures despite performing multiple sensitivity and sub-group analyses to address the same. The analysis might be limited by denominator bias as survival rates could not be assessed based on different denominators such as live births versus NICU admissions, due to inconsistent reporting in studies. Accurate gestational age assessment is still a major issue in LMICs and might have influenced our final estimates. Further, analysis by stratification on the basis of gestational age or birth weight could not be performed for ELGANs and ELBW neonates. Important confounders determining survival such as antenatal corticosteroid use, multiple gestation, SGA status, gender, chorioamnionitis and level of NICU care were not reported by majority of the included studies, thus precluding any sensitivity analysis based on these parameters. The overall CoE was very low to low for all the secondary outcomes. Finally, though the literature search included the standard databases as recommended by the Cochrane group, studies from LMICs might be more likely to be published in alternative databases as well.

Conclusion

Mortality and morbidity of ELBW neonates and ELGANs is still a huge burden in LMICs, with significant differences in their occurrence between countries of similar economic status and geographical region of location. For ELBW neonates, the survival for LI, LMI and UMI countries was 18% (11% - 28%), 28% (21% - 35%) and 39% (36% - 42%), respectively. For ELGANs, it was 13% (8% - 20%) for LI, 28% (21% - 36%) for LMI and 48% (42% - 53%) for UMI countries. These are significantly lower than the survival rates reported from HICs. The CoE for most of the outcomes was very low to low, emphasizing the need for surveillance and high quality prospective cohort studies from LMICs on this sub-group of vulnerable neonates. Such studies should provide data related to still births, live births, delivery room deaths, important baseline characteristics such as antenatal corticosteroid use, multiple gestation status, SGA, gender, chorioamnionitis and level of NICU care, and sub-group data on different gestational ages or birth weights for ELGANs or ELBW neonates. Such data would not only quantify the burden of mortality and morbidity in these preterm infants, but also enable evaluating the post-implementation impact of important public health interventions.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist for reporting of the review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.s001

(DOC)

S1 File. This file with tables and figures showing various outcomes assessed, literature search strategy, risk of bias of included studies and references of included studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255352.s002

(PDF)

References

1. Walani SR. Global burden of preterm birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;150(1):31–33. pmid:32524596
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. WHO, March of Dimes, PMNCH, Save the Children. 15 million preterm births: Priorities for action based on national, regional and global estimates. In: Howson CP, Kinney MV, Lawn J, eds. Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth. 2012.
3. Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, Lumbiganon P, Petzold M, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: A systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7:e37–e46. pmid:30389451
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard M, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional and worldwide estimates of preterm birth. Lancet. 2012;379:2162–2172. pmid:22682464
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. WHO, Every Newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. 2014 https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/every-newborn-action-plan/en/ Accessed 10th January 2021.
6. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. Neonatal survival 1–4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet. 2005;365:891–900. pmid:15752534
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Gilbert C. Retinopathy of prematurity: a global perspective of the epidemics, population of babies at risk and implications for control. Early Hum Dev. 2008; 84:77–82. pmid:18234457
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Mwaniki MK, Atieno M, Lawn JE, Newton CR, et al. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intrauterine and neonatal insults: a systematic review. Lancet. 2012; 379 (9814):445–452. pmid:22244654
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Narang A, Kumar P, Kumar R. Chronic lung disease in neonates: emerging problem in India. Indian Pediatr. 2002;39:158–162. pmid:11867845
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Patwardhan SD, Azad R, Gogia V, Chandra P, Gupta S, et al. Prevailing clinical practices regarding screening for retinopathy of prematurity among pediatricians in India: a pilot survey. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59:427–430. pmid:22011485
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Pascal A, Govaert P, Oostra A, Naulaers G, Ortibus E, Van den Broeck C. Neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm and very-low-birthweight infants born over the past decade: a meta-analytic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(4):342–355. pmid:29350401
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Milner KM, Neal EF, Roberts G, Steer AC, Duke T. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcome in high-risk newborns in resource-limited settings: a systematic review of the literature. Paediatr Int Child Health. 2015;35(3):227–42. pmid:26138273
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Gladstone M, Oliver C, Van den Broek N. Survival, morbidity, growth and developmental delay for babies born preterm in low and middle income countries—a systematic review of outcomes measured. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120566. pmid:25793703
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy, Abiramalatha Thangaraj, Tapas Bandyopadhyay, Debasish Nanda, Prathik Bandya. Morbidity and mortality of extremely low gestational age neonates in low- and middle- Income Countries–A Systematic Review and meta-analysis. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=222873. Accessed 8th January 2021
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000100. pmid:19621070
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 20165:210. pmid:27919275
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Accessed 8th January 2021.
18. Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1500 gm. J Pediatr. 1978;92 (4):529–534. pmid:305471
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, Keating JP, Marshall R, Barton L, et al. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Ann Surg. 1978;187(1):1–7. pmid:413500
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(7):991–999. pmid:16009843
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Hayden JA, van Der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):280. pmid:23420236
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Myrhaug HT, Brurberg KG, Hov L, Markestad T. Survival and Impairment of Extremely Premature Infants: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2019;143(2):e20180933. pmid:30705140
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Egger M, Smith D, Altmand DG. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.
24. Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ. 2015;350:h870 pmid:25775931
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Hayashino Y, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias. J Epidemiol. 2005;15(6):235–43. pmid:16276033
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Bhat BV, Adhisivam B. Editorial: Improving neonatal survival in India. Int J Adv Med Health Res. 2015;2:1–2.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Martinez AM, Khu DT, Boo NY. Barriers to neonatal care in developing countries: parents’ and providers’ perceptions. J Paediatr Child Health. 2012;48 (9):852–858. pmid:22970681
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Guillen U, DeMauro S, Ma L, Zupancic J, Wang E, Gafni A, et al. Survival rates in extremely low birthweight infants depend on the denominator: avoiding potential bias by specifying denominators. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(4):329.e1–7. pmid:21741613
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Best KE, Seaton SE, Draper ES, Field DJ, Kurinczuk JJ, Manktelow BN, et al. Assessing the deprivation gap in stillbirths and neonatal deaths by cause of death: a national population-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104(6):F624–F630. pmid:30842208
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Shah PS, Lui K, Sjörs G, Mirea L, Reichman B, Adams M, et al. International Network for Evaluating Outcomes (iNeo) of Neonates. Neonatal Outcomes of Very Low Birth Weight and Very Preterm Neonates: An International Comparison. J Pediatr. 2016;177:144–152.e6 pmid:27233521
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Watkins PL, Dagle JM, Bell EF, Colaizy TT. Outcomes at 18 to 22 Months of Corrected Age for Infants Born at 22 to 25 Weeks of Gestation in a Center Practicing Active Management. J Pediatr. 2020;217:52‐58.e1. pmid:31606151
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Backes CH, Söderström F, Ågren J, Sindelar R, Bartlett CW, Rivera BK, et al. Outcomes following a comprehensive versus a selective approach for infants born at 22 weeks of gestation. J Perinatol. 2019;39(1):39‐47. pmid:30353079
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Isayama T. The clinical management and outcomes of extremely preterm infants in Japan: past, present, and future. Transl Pediatr. 2019;8(3):199‐211. pmid:31413954
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Indian Newborn Action Plan 2014. https://nhm.gov.in/index4.php?lang=1&level=0&linkid=153&lid=174. Accessed 13th January 2021.
35. Hanson C, Singh S, Zamboni K, Tyagi M, Chamarty S, Shukla R, et al. Care practices and neonatal survival in 52 neonatal intensive care units in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(7):e1002860. pmid:31335869
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Cheah IGS. Economic assessment of neonatal intensive care. Transl Pediatr. 2019;8(3):246–256. pmid:31413958
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Burstein R, Henry NJ, Collison ML, Marczak LB, Sligar A, Watson S, et al. Mapping 123 million neonatal, infant and child deaths between 2000 and 2017. Nature. 2019 t;574(7778):353–358 pmid:31619795
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Saugstad OD. Reducing global neonatal mortality is possible. Neonatology. 2011;99(4):250–7. pmid:21088433
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Norman M, Hallberg B, Abrahamsson T, Björklund LJ, Domellöf M, Farooqi A, et al. Association Between Year of Birth and 1-Year Survival Among Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden During 2004–2007 and 2014–2016. JAMA. 2019;321(12):1188–1199 pmid:30912837
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Kono Y, Yonemoto N, Nakanishi H, Kusuda S, Fujimura M. Changes in survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants born at <25 weeks’ gestation: a retrospective observational study in tertiary centres in Japan. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2018;2(1):e000211 pmid:29637189
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Ancel PY, Goffinet F; EPIPAGE-2 Writing Group, Kuhn P, Langer B, Matis J, et al. Survival and morbidity of preterm children born at 22 through 34 weeks’ gestation in France in 2011: results of the EPIPAGE-2 cohort study. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(3):230–8 pmid:25621457
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Walsh MC, Carlo WA, Shankaran S, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Trends in Care Practices, Morbidity, and Mortality of Extremely Preterm Neonates, 1993–2012. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1039–51. pmid:26348753
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Costeloe KL, Hennessy EM, Haider S, Stacey F, Marlow N, Draper ES. Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). BMJ. 2012;345: e7976. pmid:23212881
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Mactier H, Bates SE, Johnston T, Lee-Davey C, Marlow N, Mulley Ket al. Perinatal management of extreme preterm birth before 27 weeks of gestation: a framework for practice. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(3):232‐239. pmid:31980443
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Walani SR. Global burden of preterm birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;150(1):31–33. pmid:32524596
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. WHO, March of Dimes, PMNCH, Save the Children. 15 million preterm births: Priorities for action based on national, regional and global estimates. In: Howson CP, Kinney MV, Lawn J, eds. Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth. 2012.

[ref3] 3. Chawanpaiboon S, Vogel JP, Moller AB, Lumbiganon P, Petzold M, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: A systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7:e37–e46. pmid:30389451
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] PubMed/NCBI

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard M, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional and worldwide estimates of preterm birth. Lancet. 2012;379:2162–2172. pmid:22682464
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] PubMed/NCBI

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. WHO, Every Newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths. 2014 https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/every-newborn-action-plan/en/ Accessed 10th January 2021.

[ref6] 6. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. Neonatal survival 1–4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet. 2005;365:891–900. pmid:15752534
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[16] View Article

[17] PubMed/NCBI

[18] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Gilbert C. Retinopathy of prematurity: a global perspective of the epidemics, population of babies at risk and implications for control. Early Hum Dev. 2008; 84:77–82. pmid:18234457
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] PubMed/NCBI

[22] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Mwaniki MK, Atieno M, Lawn JE, Newton CR, et al. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes after intrauterine and neonatal insults: a systematic review. Lancet. 2012; 379 (9814):445–452. pmid:22244654
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Narang A, Kumar P, Kumar R. Chronic lung disease in neonates: emerging problem in India. Indian Pediatr. 2002;39:158–162. pmid:11867845
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Patwardhan SD, Azad R, Gogia V, Chandra P, Gupta S, et al. Prevailing clinical practices regarding screening for retinopathy of prematurity among pediatricians in India: a pilot survey. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2011;59:427–430. pmid:22011485
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Pascal A, Govaert P, Oostra A, Naulaers G, Ortibus E, Van den Broeck C. Neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm and very-low-birthweight infants born over the past decade: a meta-analytic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(4):342–355. pmid:29350401
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] PubMed/NCBI

[38] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Milner KM, Neal EF, Roberts G, Steer AC, Duke T. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcome in high-risk newborns in resource-limited settings: a systematic review of the literature. Paediatr Int Child Health. 2015;35(3):227–42. pmid:26138273
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Gladstone M, Oliver C, Van den Broek N. Survival, morbidity, growth and developmental delay for babies born preterm in low and middle income countries—a systematic review of outcomes measured. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120566. pmid:25793703
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] PubMed/NCBI

[46] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy, Abiramalatha Thangaraj, Tapas Bandyopadhyay, Debasish Nanda, Prathik Bandya. Morbidity and mortality of extremely low gestational age neonates in low- and middle- Income Countries–A Systematic Review and meta-analysis. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=222873. Accessed 8th January 2021

[ref15] 15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000100. pmid:19621070
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] PubMed/NCBI

[51] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 20165:210. pmid:27919275
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Accessed 8th January 2021.

[ref18] 18. Papile LA, Burstein J, Burstein R, Koffler H. Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventricular hemorrhage: a study of infants with birth weights less than 1500 gm. J Pediatr. 1978;92 (4):529–534. pmid:305471
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[58] View Article

[59] PubMed/NCBI

[60] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, Keating JP, Marshall R, Barton L, et al. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Ann Surg. 1978;187(1):1–7. pmid:413500
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. The International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity revisited. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(7):991–999. pmid:16009843
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Hayden JA, van Der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):280. pmid:23420236
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Myrhaug HT, Brurberg KG, Hov L, Markestad T. Survival and Impairment of Extremely Premature Infants: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2019;143(2):e20180933. pmid:30705140
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Egger M, Smith D, Altmand DG. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.

[ref24] 24. Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ. 2015;350:h870 pmid:25775931
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] PubMed/NCBI

[81] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Hayashino Y, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias. J Epidemiol. 2005;15(6):235–43. pmid:16276033
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] PubMed/NCBI

[85] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Bhat BV, Adhisivam B. Editorial: Improving neonatal survival in India. Int J Adv Med Health Res. 2015;2:1–2.
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Martinez AM, Khu DT, Boo NY. Barriers to neonatal care in developing countries: parents’ and providers’ perceptions. J Paediatr Child Health. 2012;48 (9):852–858. pmid:22970681
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Guillen U, DeMauro S, Ma L, Zupancic J, Wang E, Gafni A, et al. Survival rates in extremely low birthweight infants depend on the denominator: avoiding potential bias by specifying denominators. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(4):329.e1–7. pmid:21741613
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Best KE, Seaton SE, Draper ES, Field DJ, Kurinczuk JJ, Manktelow BN, et al. Assessing the deprivation gap in stillbirths and neonatal deaths by cause of death: a national population-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104(6):F624–F630. pmid:30842208
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] PubMed/NCBI

[100] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Shah PS, Lui K, Sjörs G, Mirea L, Reichman B, Adams M, et al. International Network for Evaluating Outcomes (iNeo) of Neonates. Neonatal Outcomes of Very Low Birth Weight and Very Preterm Neonates: An International Comparison. J Pediatr. 2016;177:144–152.e6 pmid:27233521
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] PubMed/NCBI

[104] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Watkins PL, Dagle JM, Bell EF, Colaizy TT. Outcomes at 18 to 22 Months of Corrected Age for Infants Born at 22 to 25 Weeks of Gestation in a Center Practicing Active Management. J Pediatr. 2020;217:52‐58.e1. pmid:31606151
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[106] View Article

[107] PubMed/NCBI

[108] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Backes CH, Söderström F, Ågren J, Sindelar R, Bartlett CW, Rivera BK, et al. Outcomes following a comprehensive versus a selective approach for infants born at 22 weeks of gestation. J Perinatol. 2019;39(1):39‐47. pmid:30353079
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] PubMed/NCBI

[112] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Isayama T. The clinical management and outcomes of extremely preterm infants in Japan: past, present, and future. Transl Pediatr. 2019;8(3):199‐211. pmid:31413954
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Indian Newborn Action Plan 2014. https://nhm.gov.in/index4.php?lang=1&level=0&linkid=153&lid=174. Accessed 13th January 2021.

[ref35] 35. Hanson C, Singh S, Zamboni K, Tyagi M, Chamarty S, Shukla R, et al. Care practices and neonatal survival in 52 neonatal intensive care units in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2019; 16(7):e1002860. pmid:31335869
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Cheah IGS. Economic assessment of neonatal intensive care. Transl Pediatr. 2019;8(3):246–256. pmid:31413958
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Burstein R, Henry NJ, Collison ML, Marczak LB, Sligar A, Watson S, et al. Mapping 123 million neonatal, infant and child deaths between 2000 and 2017. Nature. 2019 t;574(7778):353–358 pmid:31619795
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Saugstad OD. Reducing global neonatal mortality is possible. Neonatology. 2011;99(4):250–7. pmid:21088433
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Norman M, Hallberg B, Abrahamsson T, Björklund LJ, Domellöf M, Farooqi A, et al. Association Between Year of Birth and 1-Year Survival Among Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden During 2004–2007 and 2014–2016. JAMA. 2019;321(12):1188–1199 pmid:30912837
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Kono Y, Yonemoto N, Nakanishi H, Kusuda S, Fujimura M. Changes in survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants born at <25 weeks’ gestation: a retrospective observational study in tertiary centres in Japan. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2018;2(1):e000211 pmid:29637189
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Ancel PY, Goffinet F; EPIPAGE-2 Writing Group, Kuhn P, Langer B, Matis J, et al. Survival and morbidity of preterm children born at 22 through 34 weeks’ gestation in France in 2011: results of the EPIPAGE-2 cohort study. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(3):230–8 pmid:25621457
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Walsh MC, Carlo WA, Shankaran S, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Trends in Care Practices, Morbidity, and Mortality of Extremely Preterm Neonates, 1993–2012. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1039–51. pmid:26348753
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Costeloe KL, Hennessy EM, Haider S, Stacey F, Marlow N, Draper ES. Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). BMJ. 2012;345: e7976. pmid:23212881
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Mactier H, Bates SE, Johnston T, Lee-Davey C, Marlow N, Mulley Ket al. Perinatal management of extreme preterm birth before 27 weeks of gestation: a framework for practice. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(3):232‐239. pmid:31980443
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Context

Objectives

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Trial registration

Introduction

Methods

Literature search

Inclusion criteria

Outcomes

Risk of bias (ROB) assessment

Data collection and synthesis

Certainty of evidence (CoE) assessment

Sensitivity analyses

Results

Risk of bias

Primary outcome

1a. Survival until discharge for ELBW neonates.

1b. Survival until discharge for ELGANs.

Secondary outcomes

Short-term and long-term neurological outcomes.

Cardio-respiratory outcomes.

Sepsis.

NEC stage II or more.

EUGR.

ROP.

Sensitivity analyses.

Certainty of evidence

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist for reporting of the review.

S1 File. This file with tables and figures showing various outcomes assessed, literature search strategy, risk of bias of included studies and references of included studies.

References