Objective: To identify, describe and appraise systematic reviews of interventions for delivery room care (transition support or resuscitation) of newborn infants.
Searches
We will search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, and reference lists of relevant articles.
Types of study to be included
Systematic reviews.
Condition or domain being studied
Sick or preterm newborn infants often have delay in physiological postnatal transition that causes cardio-respirator and neurological compromise.
Participants/ population
Newborn infants who are compromised at birth including preterm infants.
Intervention(s), exposure(s)
Any delivery room transition support intervention for newborn infants who are compromised at birth: airway support, ventilatory (breathing) support, circulatory support, other drug interventions and thermoregulatory interventions.
Comparator(s)/ control
Standard care or existing intervention of placebo/no drug.
Context
We will define 'systematic reviews' by DARE criteria.
Outcome(s)
Primary outcomes
Measures of review quality (e.g. up-to-date, robust search strategy), and description of scope and findings of included reviews.
Secondary outcomes
Description of major findings of the included reviews (e.g. number of trials included, quality of trials, effect sizes).
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of all records identified in the search and order full papers for any potentially relevant systematic reviews. The full texts will be assessed and those studies that do not meet all of the inclusion criteria excluded. Any disagreements will be discussed until consensus is achieved, if necessary through referral to a third reviewer.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
We are examining the available quality assessment tools for systematic reviews. These are likely to included key quality elements such as robustness of the serach strategy, how included trials were quality-assessed, synthesis methods, exploration of heterogeneity and bias.
Strategy for data synthesis
Narrative synthesis.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
Gestational age at birth: Term vs. <37 weeks or <32 weeks.
Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
Dissemination plans
As per CRD policy and practice.
Contact details for further information
William McGuire
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
University of York
YO10 5DD UK
william.mcguire@hyms.ac.uk
Organisational affiliation of the review
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/
Review team
Dr William McGuire, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Ms Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Mrs Jennifer Brown, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Ms Melissa Harden, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
Anticipated or actual start date
01 October 2012
Anticipated completion date
31 December 2012
Funding sources/sponsors
UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG- 0609-10107)
Conflicts of interest
None known
Other registration details
None.
Language
English
Country
England
Subject index terms status
Subject indexing assigned by CRD
Reference and/or URL for protocol
Not applicable.
Date of registration in PROSPERO
04 October 2012
Date of publication of this revision
04 October 2012
Stage of review at time of this submission
Started
Completed
Preliminary searches
Yes
Piloting of the study selection process
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Data extraction
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Data analysis
Prospective meta-analysis
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.
