Literature DB >> 10066201

Neonatal examination and screening trial (NEST): a randomised, controlled, switchback trial of alternative policies for low risk infants.

C M Glazener1, C R Ramsay, M K Campbell, P Booth, P Duffty, D J Lloyd, A McDonald, J A Reid.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of one rather than two hospital neonatal examinations in detection of abnormalities.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled switchback trial.
SETTING: Postnatal wards in a teaching hospital in north east Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: All infants delivered at the hospital between March 1993 and February 1995. INTERVENTION: A policy of one neonatal screening examination compared with a policy of two. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Congenital conditions diagnosed in hospital; results of community health assessments at 8 weeks and 8 months; outpatient referrals; inpatient admissions; use of general practioner services; focused analysis of outcomes for suspected hip and heart abnormalities.
RESULTS: 4835 babies were allocated to receive one screening examination (one screen policy) and 4877 to receive two (two screen policy). More congenital conditions were suspected at discharge among babies examined twice (9.9 v 8.3 diagnoses per 100 babies; 95% confidence interval for difference 0.3 to 2.7). There was no overall significant difference between the groups in use of community, outpatient, or inpatient resources or in health care received. Although more babies who were examined twice attended orthopaedic outpatient clinics (340 (7%) v 289 (6%)), particularly for suspected congenital dislocation of the hip (176 (3.6/100 babies) v 137 (2.8/100 babies); difference -0.8; -1.5 to 0.1), there was no significant difference in the number of babies who required active management (12 (0.2%) v 15 (0.3%)).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite more suspected abnormalities, there was no evidence of net health gain from a policy of two hospital neonatal examinations. Adoption of a single examination policy would save resources both during the postnatal hospital stay and through fewer outpatient consultations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10066201      PMCID: PMC27766          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7184.627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  11 in total

1.  Routine discharge examination of babies: is it necessary?

Authors:  P H Cartlidge
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  Routine examination in the neonatal period.

Authors:  G D Moss; P H Cartlidge; B D Speidel; T L Chambers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-04-13

3.  Cluster randomised trials: time for improvement. The implications of adopting a cluster design are still largely being ignored.

Authors:  M K Campbell; J M Grimshaw
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

4.  Effective screening in child health.

Authors:  R Robinson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-03

5.  Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines.

Authors:  K F Schulz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-08-31       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Influence of apolipoprotein A-1 promoter polymorphism on lipid levels and responses to dietary change in Finnish adults.

Authors:  Q H Meng; P Pajukanta; L Valsta; A Aro; P Pietinen; M J Tikkanen
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 8.989

7.  Splintage for congenital dislocation of the hip. Is it safe and reliable?

Authors:  J Bradley; M Wetherill; M K Benson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1987-03

8.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Surgery for congenital dislocation of the hip in the UK as a measure of outcome of screening. MRC Working Party on Congenital Dislocation of the Hip. Medical Research Council.

Authors:  S Godward; C Dezateux
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-04-18       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Presentation of obstructive left heart malformations in infancy.

Authors:  M Abu-Harb; J Wyllie; E Hey; S Richmond; C Wren
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.747

View more
  9 in total

1.  Role of the routine neonatal examination. It probably makes more sense for other staff to carry out neonatal examinations.

Authors:  D Walker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-26

2.  Combining the two neonatal examinations. In primary care, second examination is useful.

Authors:  C Harnden
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-03

3.  The role of the routine neonatal examination.

Authors:  D M Hall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-03-06

4.  Routine examination of the newborn and maternal satisfaction: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  D Wolke; S Dave; J Hayes; J Townsend; M Tomlin
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.747

5.  Routine neonatal examination: effectiveness of trainee paediatrician compared with advanced neonatal nurse practitioner.

Authors:  T W Lee; R E Skelton; C Skene
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.747

Review 6.  Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals.

Authors:  Suezann Puffer; David Torgerson; Judith Watson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-10-04

7.  Does lack of routine postnatal examination on maternity unit increase the risk of hospital admission in the first week of life?

Authors:  Arthur Abelian; Jim Turner; Jonathan Cusack
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 3.183

8.  Effectiveness of neonatal pulse oximetry screening for detection of critical congenital heart disease in daily clinical routine--results from a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Frank Thomas Riede; Cornelia Wörner; Ingo Dähnert; Andreas Möckel; Martin Kostelka; Peter Schneider
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 3.183

9.  The use of the cluster randomized crossover design in clinical trials: protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Sarah J Arnup; Andrew B Forbes; Brennan C Kahan; Katy E Morgan; Steve McDonald; Joanne E McKenzie
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2014-08-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.