Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0337798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337798

Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents for the treatment of perinatal asphyxia in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Victor Ayodeji Ayeni 1,*, Aisha Adam Abdullahi 2, Abdulmuminu Isah 3, Love Bukola Ayamolowo 4, Timothy Adeyemi 5, Motunrayo Adebukunola Oladimeji 6, Ufuoma Shalom Ahwinahwi 7, Vitalis Ikenna Chukwuike 8, Oluchukwu Perpetual Okeke 9, Olunike Rebecca Abodunrin 10, Folahanmi Tomiwa Akinsolu 11,9, Olajide Odunayo Sobande 12
Editor: Stefan Grosek13
PMCID: PMC12677539  PMID: 41343532

Abstract

Background

Perinatal asphyxia (PA) is a major contributor to neonatal mortality and long-term neurodevelopmental impairment, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the effectiveness of therapeutic hypothermia remains limited. Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents have shown potential as alternative treatments, but their efficacy in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LILMICs) is not well established. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in neonates with PA in LILMICs.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2024. Eligible studies compared pharmacologic neuroprotective agents with placebo or standard care, excluding therapeutic hypothermia, among neonates diagnosed with PA in LILMICs. Data on survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes were extracted and synthesized; meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.

Results

Twelve RCTs involving 1,008 neonates were included. The majority (91.7%) of studies were conducted in Asia, with only one study from Africa. Magnesium sulphate was the most frequently evaluated agent (66.7% of studies), followed by melatonin, topiramate, erythropoietin, and citicoline. Melatonin was associated with improved survival, and all agents showed improved short-term neurological outcomes. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 3, 6, 12, and 19 months were generally favourable, though data remained limited.

Conclusion

Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents show promise in improving survival and neurological outcomes in neonates with PA in LILMICs. However, more robust, multi-center RCTs are needed to confirm their efficacy and establish them as feasible alternatives to therapeutic hypothermia in these settings.

Background

Neonatal mortality remains a major contributor to under-five mortality globally, with the burden disproportionately higher in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1]. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) accounts for 38% of global neonatal deaths, largely from preventable causes such as perinatal asphyxia (PA) [2]. In high-income countries, the prevalence of PA is approximately 2 per 1,000 live births, whereas in LMICs, rates are up to ten times higher due to limited access to skilled care during childbirth [3]. Among neonates affected by PA, 15–25% die in the neonatal period, and about 25% of survivors suffer long-term neurological impairments [4]. SSA alone accounts for nearly half (46%) of global PA-related deaths and a significant proportion of associated neurodevelopmental disabilities [2].

PA is defined as impaired gas exchange or compromised blood flow around the time of birth, leading to persistent hypoxemia and hypercarbia [5]. This often progresses to neonatal encephalopathy, which imposes severe short- and long-term consequences on the child, family, and healthcare systems, particularly in resource-limited settings [2]. In these contexts, the economic burden further compounds the challenges of managing PA effectively.

While Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 prioritises the reduction of preventable neonatal deaths [6], effective strategies for the prevention and treatment of PA remain limited in LMICs. Prevention is key in the management of PA. However, the training of health workers on resuscitation skills has only been partially effective in low-income countries and lower-middle-income countries [7], with resultant high rates of morbidity and mortality.

Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) is the current standard of care in high-income countries and has demonstrated neuroprotective efficacy in multiple randomised controlled trials [8,9]. However, its implementation in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LILMIC) is limited due to infrastructure and cost [10]. Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that TH may be ineffective—or even harmful—in these settings. The HELIX trial, conducted across tertiary neonatal units in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, found no benefit of TH in LILMICs [11], a finding supported by meta-analyses of similar trials [12]. Contributing factors may include a higher prevalence of low birthweight and small-for-gestational-age neonates, as well as earlier and more severe hypoxic insults [10,11].

Supportive care (e.g., fluid therapy, seizure control, nutritional support) remains the mainstay of treatment in most LMICs but has not significantly improved long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes [1315]. This highlights the urgent need to explore alternative, cost-effective neuroprotective therapies suitable for resource-constrained environments.

PA initiates a cascade of biochemical and physiological disturbances, including oxidative stress and anaerobic metabolism, leading to the generation of free radicals that cause cellular injury [16]. In response, several novel pharmacological agents with neuroprotective properties are being investigated—either as adjuncts to TH or as standalone therapies. These interventions target neuronal apoptosis, oxidative stress, and restoration of neurophysiology [1618].

This study is aimed at synthesising the current evidence on neuroprotective alternatives to therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of perinatal asphyxia and neonatal encephalopathy in human neonates in LILMICs.

Study objectives

The primary objective that guided this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of pharmacologic neuroprotective alternatives to therapeutic hypothermia for treating perinatal asphyxia in LILMIC.

The review addressed the following research questions:

  1. What were the key pharmacologic agents that showed potential neuroprotective benefits for neonates with perinatal asphyxia in LILMIC?

  2. What were the neurodevelopmental and survival outcomes associated with pharmacologic neuroprotective interventions in neonates with perinatal asphyxia in LILMIC?

  3. How did pharmacologic alternatives compare to standard supportive care in reducing brain injury and preventing neurodevelopmental sequelae among neonates affected by perinatal asphyxia/neonatal encephalopathy?

Methods

Protocol registration

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO with the ID: CRD42024589526. The review sought to provide a broad overview of the available literature on neuroprotective interventions and identify research gaps in this area. It adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, ensuring methodological rigour and transparency [19]. (Supplementary File 1)

Using the PICO framework recommended for an exhaustive literature search [20,21], Table 1 provides a structured approach to comparing neonates with perinatal asphyxia, pharmacologic neuroprotective interventions, and key outcomes, with a placebo group serving as a control for the study’s focus on mortality and neurodevelopmental results.

Table 1. PICO framework.

P – population I – Intervention C – comparator O – Outcome
Neonates with perinatal asphyxia Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents Supportive care with or without a placebo Survival, early neurologic outcomes and late neurodevelopmental outcomes

Search strategy

The search was conducted to identify relevant studies on pharmacologic neuroprotective alternatives to therapeutic hypothermia. The databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. A comprehensive search strategy was developed, which included the following keywords and their synonyms: “Perinatal asphyxia” OR “Neonatal encephalopathy” AND “neuroprotect*” OR “Magnesium sulphate” OR “Erythropoietin” OR “Melatonin” OR Topiramate, etc. The search strategy is in Supplementary File 2. Additional searches were performed on ClinicalTrials.gov to include registered trials. The review covered studies published between January 2000 and August 2024. The PRISMA flow chart of the search process is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. PRISMA Flowchart for Pharmacologic Neuroprotective Alternatives to Therapeutic Hypothermia.

Fig 1

Selection criteria

The inclusion criteria covered studies that:

  1. Investigated pharmacologic neuroprotective interventions started within 24 hours of birth.

  2. Were conducted in low-income or lower-middle-income settings,

  3. reported neurodevelopmental outcomes, survival rates, or time to recovery from neurological depression or adverse events.

  4. Compare pharmacologic alternatives to standard care and/or placebo (other than therapeutic hypothermia).

  5. Were randomised controlled trials

The exclusion criteria covered studies that

  1. Compared Therapeutic hypothermia with other alternatives,

  2. Were animal studies, in vitro studies, reviews without original data, or case reports.

Study selection and screening

Search results from the databases were exported into Rayyan software, where duplicates were removed. Two independent reviewers with an acceptable Kappa score of 1.0 during a pretest (VAA and AAA) screened the titles and abstracts using the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All conflicts were discussed by the reviewers and resolved appropriately. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were retrieved for further review.

Data extraction

Data was extracted independently by VAA and AI using a standardised extraction form to ensure consistency. (Supplementary File 3) Study characteristics were collected from each included article, such as the country and region where the study was carried out, sample size, estimated gestational age (EGA), neuroprotective agent, dosage and route of administration, Control/placebo, and study design (Table 2). The different outcomes measured, including survival, the duration from birth to resolution of immediate neurological depression, and short- and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes (survival; successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge; mean time to initiation of enteral feeds; need for seizure control at review time; mean/median number of days to seizure control; duration of hospital stay; neuroimaging features at discharge/ 1 month of age; neurologic outcome at discharge/ 1 month of age; neurodevelopmental outcome at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 11 months; adverse event), were also extracted (Tables 3–4).

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.

Ref. Authors Title Country Region Sample Size EGA* Neuroprotective agents Dosage Route Control Quality
1. Ahmad et al., 2018 [31] Role of melatonin in management of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in newborns: A randomized control trial Pakistan Asia 80 Late pre-term and term Melatonin 10 mg*
(single dose)
Enteral Only supportive care Low risk
2. Akther et al., 2020
[32]
Role of Topiramete in Moderate to Severe Perinatal Asphyxia – A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Bangladesh Asia 64 Term Topiramate 10 mg daily for 3 days Enteral Only supportive care Low risk
3. Bhat et al., 2009
[33]
Magnesium sulphate in severe Perinatal Asphyxia: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial India Asia 40 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg per dose daily IV infusion Normal saline Low risk
4 Iqbal et al., 2021
[34]
The Neuroprotective Efficacy of Postnatal Magnesium Sulfate in Term or Near-Term Infants With Moderate-to-Severe Birth Asphyxia Pakistan Asia 62 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg per dose daily IV infusion Dextrose water Low risk
5. Mahmood et al., 2015
[35]
Effect of Postnatal Magnesium Sulfate Infusion on Neurological Outcome of Term Neonates with Severe Perinatal Asphyxia Pakistan Asia 64 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg/dose daily IV infusion Normal saline Moderate risk
6. Malla et al., 2017
[36]
Erythropoietin monotherapy in perinatal asphyxia with moderate to severe encephalopathy: a randomized
placebo-controlled trial
India Asia 100 Term Erythropoietin 500 IU/kg/dose on alternate days IV Normal saline Low risk
7. Prakash et al. 2016
[37]
Neurodevelopmental Outcome at 12 Months of Postnatal Magnesium Sulphate Therapy for Perinatal Asphyxia India Asia 120 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg/dose IV infusion Normal saline Low risk
8. Rahman et al. 2021
[38]
Effectiveness of Magnesium Sulphate In Term Neonate With Perinatal Asphyxia: A Study In Faridpur Medical College Hospital, Faridpur, Bangladesh Bangladesh Asia 50 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg/dose IV infusion Normal saline Low risk
9. Rashid et al.,2015 [39] Role of Magnesium Sulphate In Short Term Neurological Outcome of Perinatal Asphyxia Pakistan Asia 200 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg/dose IV infusion Normal saline Moderate risk
10. Sajid et al., 2018 [17] Therapeutic Efficacy of Magnesium Sulphate On Neurological Outcome of Neonates With Severe Birth Asphyxia Pakistan Asia 66 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg/dose IV infusion Normal saline Low risk
11. Salamah et al., 2023 [40] Citicoline in hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in neonates: a randomized controlled trial Egypt Africa 80 Late pre-term and Term Citicoline 10 mg/kg IV Placebo Low risk
12. Siddiqui and Butt, 2021 [41] Role of Intravenous Magnesium Sulphate in Term Neonates with Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) in a Low-income Country: A Randomised Clinical Trial Pakistan Asia 82 Term Magnesium Sulphate 250 mg/kg/dose IV infusion Normal saline Low risk

* EGA: Estimated Gestational Age; IV: Intravenous; mg: milligram; kg: Kilogram.

Table 3. Descriptive Characteristics of Outcomes.

Authors/Year Intervention Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Outcome 6 Outcome 7 Outcome 8 Outcome 9
IG (%) CG (%) IG (%) CG (%) IG (days) CG (days) IG (%) CG (%) IG (IQR) (days) CG (IQR) (days) IG (SD) (days) CG (SD) (days) IG (%) CG (%) IG (%) CG (%) Not reported
Ahmad et al., 2018 Melatonin 87.5 65 Not reported
Akther et al., 2020 Topiramate 2.63 ± 1.1 4.5 ± 1.3 24 (19.536) 72 (24,72) 6.3 ± 1.7 10.3 ± 2.7 93 52 73 41 Not reported
Bhat et al., 2009 MgSO4 90 90 77 37 83 56 83 56 77 44 Apnoea
Iqbal et al., 2021 MgSO4 93.5 87.1 1.58 ± 0.56 2.52 ± 0.96 1.71 ± 0.46 2.65 ± 1.11 3.26 ± 1.06 4.39 ± 1.99 57.1 39.3 Not reported
Mahmood et al., 2015 MgSO4 71.4 40 88.6 62.9 Not reported
Malla et al., 2017 Erythropoietin 16 16 6 ± 4.3 9.7 ± 5.1 81 57 9.7 ± 6.9 13.5 ± 8.1 60 40 Transient increase in red cell indices
Prakash et al. 2016 MgSO4 86.4 73.7 None
Rahman et al. 2021 MgSO4 80 76 Not reported
Rashid et al.,2015 MgSO4 72 31 Not reported
Sajid et al., 2018 MgSO4 75.7 39.4 84.9 51.5 75.8 45.4 Not reported
Salamah et al., 2023 Citicoline 95 72.5 25.58 ± 9.36 25.58 ± 9.36 75 47.5 Transient diarrhoea
Siddiqui & Butt, 2021 MgSO4 75 65 67.5 40 24.39 19.51 65 37.5 None

Outcome 1 – Survival; Outcome 2 – successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge; Outcome 3 – mean time to initiation of enteral feeds; Outcome 4 – no need for seizure control at review time; Outcome 5 – mean/median number of days to seizure control; Outcome 6 – duration of hospital stay; Outcome 7 – normal neuroimaging features at discharge/ 1 month of age; Outcome 8 – normal neurologic outcome at discharge/ 1 month of age; Outcome 9 – adverse event

IG – intervention group, CG – control group; SD standard deviation; IQR (interquartile range).

Quality assessment

The risk of bias for the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in this review was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist [22]. (Supplementary File 4). Each article was evaluated on relevant domains, with a score of 1 assigned for “yes” and 0 for both “no” and “unclear.” Domains deemed not applicable to a particular study were marked as “N/A.” VAA, AAA, AI and LBA conducted the assessment collaboratively, with disagreements resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. Studies with an aggregate score ranging from 0.7 to 1.0 were classified as having a low risk of bias; those scoring between 0.5 and 0.69 were considered moderate, and any study scoring below 0.5 had a high risk of bias.

Data analysis

The data synthesis of this review was focused on evaluating the effectiveness of pharmacologic neuroprotective interventions in improving neurodevelopmental outcomes and reducing mortality among neonates with PA in LILMIC. The extracted data were synthesised both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Meta-analysis was conducted using R Studio version 4.2.2 leveraging the ‘meta’ and ‘metafor’ packages, which provide robust tools for advanced meta-analytic procedures. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, such as mortality and neurodevelopmental impairments. RR was chosen as the effect measure due to its ease of interpretation in clinical contexts where outcomes are event-based.

To account for potential variations across studies—such as differences in study design, population characteristics, and intervention implementation, a random-effects model was adopted using the DerSimonian and Laird (DL) estimator [23]. This approach assumes that true effect sizes vary across studies, making it suitable for the heterogeneous settings often found in LILMICs. The DL method remains widely accepted in meta-analysis because of its simplicity and reliable performance across a broad range of applications.

Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and the I² statistic. The I² statistic was used to quantify the proportion of variability due to heterogeneity rather than chance [24]. In line with Cochrane guidelines, an I² value greater than 50%, along with a Q test p-value below 0.01, was interpreted as evidence of substantial heterogeneity [2426].

Sensitivity analysis

To assess the robustness of the pooled effect estimates and evaluate the influence of potentially missing studies, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the trim-and-fill method. This nonparametric approach estimates the impact of unpublished or missing studies on the overall effect size and adjusts the results accordingly to provide a more balanced interpretation [27].

Subgroup analysis

Predefined subgroup analyses were carried out to explore sources of heterogeneity. These included comparisons based on the type of pharmacologic neuroprotective agent—such as erythropoietin, magnesium sulfate, and melatonin—allowing assessment of differences in treatment efficacy by drug class or mechanism of action. Additionally, studies were grouped according to neurologic follow-up periods, such as immediate neonatal outcomes versus outcomes measured at 6–12 months. This time-based stratification was necessary to capture delayed-onset neurodevelopmental sequelae that might not be evident in the early neonatal period.

Publication bias

Publication bias was assessed through both visual and statistical methods. Funnel plots were examined for asymmetry, and Egger’s regression test was applied to statistically detect small-study effects [28]. A significant Egger’s test result (p < 0.05), combined with funnel plot asymmetry, was considered indicative of potential publication bias. The use of both methods improves the sensitivity and reliability of bias detection [29].

Assessment of the certainty of a body of evidence

The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework [30] across the domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias.

Results

Selection of studies

Fig 1 presents the flowchart of the data search, which resulted in the retrieval of 3,152 records. After removing duplicates, 2,140 remained for eligibility screening based on title and abstract. Of these, 2,096 studies were excluded. After reviewing the full-text record of 44 studies, 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review [17,3141]. The 32 excluded at the final stage are reported in the Supplementary file 5 with the reason for their exclusion.

Table 2 reflects the characteristics of the studies included in the review from 2009 [33] to 2024 [40]. Randomised controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of pharmacologic neuroprotective alternatives to therapeutic hypothermia for treating perinatal asphyxia were few in LILMIC between 2005 and 2014, with only one (8.3%) study [33]. However, from 2015 to 2024, there was a substantial increase in research output, with 11 studies (91.7%) published during this period [17,31,32,3441]. Sample sizes across the studies varied widely from 40 [33] to 200 [39] participants, with an aggregate of 1008.

Geographical distribution of the studies

The research had a regional imbalance, with most of the included studies focused on Asia, 11 (91.7%) [17,3139,41]. In Asia, Pakistan contributed the most studies, 6 (50%) [17,31,34,35,39,41], with the rest being three (25%) in India [33,36,37] and two (16.7%) in Bangladesh [32,38]. Only one study (8.3%) was conducted in Africa, specifically Egypt [40].

Characteristics of neuroprotective agents and control

The most frequently studied neuroprotective agent was magnesium sulphate (66. 6%) with a standard dosage of 250 mg/kg per dose [17,3335,3739,41]. Other agents explored in the studies included melatonin administered at 10 mg (as a single dose) [31], topiramate at 10 mg daily [32], erythropoietin at 500 IU/kg on alternate days [36], and citicoline at 10 mg/kg [40], each of which was investigated in one study (8.3%). Regarding the route of administration, the majority of the studies (83%) used neuroprotective agents with an intravenous route, which includes magnesium sulphate, citicoline and erythropoietin [17,3341]. Two studies (16.7%) focused on melatonin [31] and topiramate [32] used oral administration as the route. The majority of the studies (66.7%) used normal saline as a placebo [17,33,3539,41], while Iqbal et al., [34] used dextrose water as the control. In the selected studies, the intervention and control groups received comparable supportive routine care (which did not include therapeutic hypothermia) in addition to the intervention or placebo (Table 2).

Outcomes

Table 3 shows the outcomes measured by the selected studies. Eight outcomes were common to at least two or more studies. These included mortality outcomes reported by 6 studies [31,33,34,3638] and time interval from birth to recovery from initial neonatal encephalopathy (measured by the initiation of oral feeds, seizure control or duration of hospital stay), which was reported by nine studies [17,3236,3941]. Seven studies [1822,26,27] reported neuroimaging features of residual brain damage at discharge or one month. In comparison, four studies [18,19,26,28] reported the neurological outcome at one month. The study by Prakash et al.[37] reported some of the outcomes of interest, but the authors grouped the outcomes under two subgroups (severe HIE and moderate HIE), so the outcomes could not be listed with the other studies (Table 3). Neurologic outcomes at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 19 months were reported by Akther et al. [32], Iqbal et al. [34], Prakash et al. [37], and Malla et al. [36], respectively.

The reviewed studies reported better neurological outcomes in neonates with perinatal asphyxia who received pharmacologic interventions compared to those who received standard supportive care. Table 4 shows the effects of the interventions on the different outcomes investigated by the included studies [23]. Only the study which employed melatonin [22] reported better survival rates for the survival outcome. On the earlier tolerability of feeds and successful initiation of feeds by discharge time, magnesium sulphate [17,33,34,39,41], topiramate [32] and erythropoietin [36] were found to improve outcomes. Topiramate [32], erythropoietin [36] and citicoline [40] were the neuroprotective agents with better seizure control. All four neuroprotective agents reduced the period of hospital stay [32,34,36,40]. Topiramate [32] and citicoline [40] resulted in fewer abnormal neuroimaging findings, while magnesium sulphate [17,33,41] and topiramate [32] improved neurological outcomes at discharge or one month of age.

Table 4. Inferential Characteristics of Outcomes.

Authors and Year of Publication Intervention Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Outcome 6 Outcome 7 Outcome 8
P val. RR
(95% CI)
P val. OR
(95% CI)
P val. P val. RR P val. P val. P val. OR/RR
(95% CI)
P val. OR (95% CI)
Ahmad et al., 2018 Melatonin 0.03*
Akther et al., 2020 Topiramate < 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 OR
0.08 (0.02-0.39)
0.02 0.14 (0.04-0.49)
Bhat et al., 2009 MgSO4 1 0.02* 0.18 [0.04–0.78] 0.1 0.07 0.02 5.5 (1.2–23.6)
Iqbal et al., 2021 MgSO4 039* 0.02 0.001 0.003 0.783
Mahmood et al., 2015 MgSO4 0.008* 0.012
Malla et al., 2017 Erythropoietin 0.61 0.75 0.006 0.002 0.46 (0.25–0.80) 0.04 0.4 RR
0.66 (0.42–1.03)
Prakash et al. 2016 MgSO4 0.32 0.51
(0.14-1.88)
Rahman et al. 2021 MgSO4 1
Rashid et al.,2015 MgSO4 0.001*
Sajid et al., 2018 MgSO4 0.002* 0.003 0.011
Salamah et al., 2023 Citicoline 0.006* 0.001 0.001
Siddiqui & Butt, 2021 MgSO4 0.329 0.004* 0.576 0.007

OR – Odd Ratio, RR – Relative Risks; Outcome 1 – Survival; Outcome 2 – successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge; Outcome 3 – mean time to initiation of enteral feeds; Outcome 4 – no need for seizure control at discharge; Outcome 5 – mean/median number of days to seizure control; Outcome 6 – duration of hospital stay; Outcome 7 – normal neuroimaging features at discharge/ 1 month of age; Outcome 8 – normal neurologic outcome at discharge/ 1 month of age. CI – confidence intervals.

In addition, better neurological outcomes at 3 months were reported for the use of topiramate 24/28 (85.7%) versus 10/26 (38%) (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.59–0.60) [32]. The neurologic outcome at 6 months [12/21 (77%) versus 8/19 (70.4%); p = 0.535] [34] and 12 months [19/22 (86.4%) versus 14/19 (73.7%); RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.14–1.88)] [37] were also better with the use of magnesium sulphate. Malla et al. [36] reported the longest follow-up among all the studies and reported a better neurodevelopmental outcome at 19 months with the use of erythropoietin [30/42 (71%) versus 15/42 (36%); RR 0.44 95% CI (0.25–0.76)]. (See Table 4)

Rahman et al. [38] subdivided the babies into moderate and severe HIE. For the subcategory of babies with moderate HIE, they reported earlier control of seizures (p = 0.04), earlier attainment of full oral feeds (p = 0.04), and shorter duration of hospital stay (p = 0.03) in the intervention group compared with the controls. However, this significant effect was not demonstrated in babies with severe HIE (p > 0.05).

Melatonin significantly improved survival (p = 0.03) [31]. Topiramate demonstrated significant benefits for seizure control (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.00), with improved neurological outcomes at one month (OR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02–0.39, p = 0.02) and 3 months [OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.59–0.60] [32]. Magnesium sulphate consistently showed earlier tolerability of enteral feeds (p = 0.02) [34], more successful initiation of sucking by discharge time across multiple outcomes, earlier feeding initiation (p < 0.05) [17,33,35,39], shorter mean time to seizure control (p = 0.001) [34], shorter hospital stays (p = 0.003) [26] and better neurological outcomes at one month (p < 0.05) [17,33,41], 6 months (p = 0.535] [34] and 12 months [RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.14–1.88)]. Erythropoietin demonstrated earlier tolerability of enteral feeds (p = 0.006), better seizure control (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25–0.80) and shorter duration of hospital stays (p = 0.04) and better neurodevelopmental outcomes at 19 months RR 0.44 95% CI (0.25–0.76) [36] Citicoline led to significantly better seizure control (p = 0.006) and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.001) than controls [40].

The included articles report no significant adverse effects with the pharmacologic therapeutic agents, apart from one out of the eight studies which studied magnesium sulphate that reported apnoea requiring ventilation in two infants (See Table 3). The overall methodological quality of the studies was deemed low risk of bias in 10 (83.3%), while only two studies were classified as moderate risk of bias.

Meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacologic neuroprotective alternatives in treating perinatal asphyxia, focusing on five key outcomes which were reported in frequencies and proportions: survival, successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge, absence of anticonvulsant requirements at discharge, normal neuroimaging features at one month, and normal neurologic/neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Survival

A meta-analysis was performed on seven articles that reported survival rates in neonates with perinatal asphyxia. Our findings indicate that pharmacologic neuroprotective agents contribute to increased survival rates in neonates compared to the control group, with a RR:1.11 (95% CI: 1.01–1.22) and no significant heterogeneity (I² = 0%) (see Fig 2).

Fig 2. Pooled Effect of the Neuroprotective Agents on Survival.

Fig 2

Additionally, survival was better with the use of melatonin, reported by Ahmad et al., [33] (RR: 1.32; 95% CI; 1.03–1.68, I² = 0%) than magnesium sulphate (pooled RR: 1.08; 95% CI; 0.97–1.20, I² = 0%), when compared with the control groups (subgroup p-value = 0.14) (see Fig 3).

Fig 3. Subgroup analysis of the effect of the neuroprotective agents on Survival.

Fig 3

Successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge

Five studies examined the successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge following pharmacologic interventions for treating perinatal asphyxia. Pooled analysis revealed a significant improvement in the initiation of oral feeding among neonates with perinatal asphyxia who received pharmacologic agents, with an RR of 1.66 (95% CI: 1.24–2.22). However, notable heterogeneity was observed (I² = 84%) (see Fig 4).

Fig 4. Pooled effect of neuroprotective agents on successful initiation of oral feeds at discharge.

Fig 4

On subgroup analysis, magnesium sulphate demonstrated better improvement in the successful initiation of oral feeding by discharge (pooled RR: 1.98; 95% CI; 1.63–2.40, I² = 0%) compared to erythropoietin reported by Malla et al, [36] (RR: 1.02, 95 CI; 0.89–1.17) (subgroup p-value= < 0.01) (see Fig 5).

Fig 5. Subgroup analysis of the effect of neuroprotective agents on successful initiation of oral feeds at discharge.

Fig 5

Absence of anticonvulsant requirement at discharge

Our findings indicate that the pharmacologic neuroprotective alternatives contribute to the absence of anticonvulsant requirements at discharge RR:1.34 (95% CI: 1.25–1.57) and no significant heterogeneity (I² = 0%) (see Fig 6).

Fig 6. Pooled effect of the pharmacological agent on the need for the anticonvulsant requirement at discharge.

Fig 6

Subgroup analysis of magnesium sulphate showed a less need for anticonvulsants at discharge RR: 1.44(95% CI; 0.96–2.15, I² = 0%) compared to the pooled RR for the other pharmacological agents (erythropoietin and citicoline), used in the studies that reported this outcome [33,36,40,41] (subgroup p-value = 0.72) (see Fig 7).

Fig 7. Subgroup analysis of the effect of the pharmacological agent on the need for the anticonvulsant requirement at discharge.

Fig 7

Normal Neuroimaging features

The pooled effect from the seven studies that reported neuroimaging features after the pharmacologic interventions for treating perinatal asphyxia revealed significant normal neuroimaging features at discharge when used to treat perinatal asphyxia RR 1.55 (95% CI: 1.34–1.79, I2 = 0%) (see Fig 8).

Fig 8. Pooled effect of the neuroprotective agents on abnormal neuroimaging features at discharge/one month.

Fig 8

On subgroup analysis for magnesium sulphate the pooled RR was 1.49 (95% CI: 1.23–1.80, I2 = 0%) normal neuroimaging features when used to treat perinatal asphyxia (Fig 9).

Fig 9. Subgroup analysis of the effect of the neuroprotective agents on abnormal neuroimaging features at discharge/one month.

Fig 9

Normal neurodevelopment outcomes

The studies that followed up the babies’ neurologic outcomes at discharge or at one month demonstrated that the neuroprotective agents contributed to normal neurologic outcomes at discharge/one month of life, RR:1.78 (95% CI: 1.40–2.26; I2 = 0%) (see Fig 10).

Fig 10. Pooled effect of the neuroprotective agents on abnormal neurologic features at discharge/one month.

Fig 10

Subgroup analysis of the three studies that investigated the neurologic outcomes using magnesium sulphate at one month showed a pooled RR of 1.71 (95% CI: 1.30–2.25; I2 = 0%) (Fig 11).

Fig 11. Subgroup analysis of the effect of the neuroprotective agents on abnormal neurologic features at discharge/one month.

Fig 11

Our review shows better neurodevelopmental outcomes at 3 months with the use of topiramate (RR 2.23; 95% CI: 1.34–3.71), 19 months with the use of erythropoietin (RR 2.00; 95% CI: 1.28–3.13) (Fig 12)

Fig 12. Effects of the neuroprotective agents on abnormal neurodevelopmental features.

Fig 12

Publication bias and sensitivity analysis

According to Egger’s test and funnel plots, publication bias was identified only for the outcome of successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge when the different types of interventions were pooled, but no publication bias was detected for the other outcomes. We used the trim-and-fill method to find that most of the examined outcomes remained consistent even after conducting sensitivity analyses. The funnel plots are shown in Supplementary file 6.

Assessment of the certainty of a body of evidence using the GRADE framework

The GRADE approach [30] was used to assess each outcome’s certainty across the domains outlined earlier. The findings are shown in Tables 5 and 6. The overall quality of evidence for MgSO4 was highly assessed for successful initiation of oral feeds by discharge and better neurologic outcomes at discharge/ one month of age. Only one study each employed melatonin and topiramate, hence the low sample sizes resulted in moderate evidence for their respective impacts on survival and better neurologic outcomes at 1 month.

Table 5. GRADE certainty assessment.

Certainty assessment Summary of findings
Participants
(studies)
Follow-up
Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Overall certainty of evidence Study event rates (%) Relative effect
(95% CI)
Anticipated absolute effects
With Basic supportive care with or without placebo With Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents Risk with Basic supportive care with or without placebo Risk difference with Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents
Survival with MgSO4
271
(7 RCTs)
not serious not serious not serious seriousa none ⨁⨁⨁○
Moderatea
102/134 (76.1%) 114/137 (83.2%) RR 1.08
(0.97 to 1.20)
102/134 (76.1%) 61 more per 1,000
(from 23 fewer to 152 more)
Survival with melatonin
80
(1 RCT)
not serious not serious not serious seriousb none ⨁⨁⨁○
Moderateb
26/40 (65.0%) 35/40 (87.5%) RR 1.35
(1.04 to 1.74)
26/40 (65.0%) 228 more per 1,000
(from 26 more to 481 more)
Successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge with MgSO4
454
(5 RCTs)
not serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁⨁⨁
High
81/227 (35.7%) 162/227 (71.4%) RR 1.98
(1.63 to 2.40)
81/227 (35.7%) 350 more per 1,000
(from 225 more to 500 more)
Absence of AED requirements at discharge with MgSO4
118
(2 RCTs)
not serious not serious not serious seriousa none ⨁⨁⨁○
Moderatea
18/59 (30.5%) 25/59 (42.4%) RR 1.44
(0.96 to 2.15)
18/59 (30.5%) 134 more per 1,000
(from 12 fewer to 351 more)
Normal Neuroimaging features at Discharge with MgSO4
228
(4 RCTs)
not serious not serious seriousc seriousa none ⨁⨁○○
Lowa,c
60/114 (52.6%) 90/114 (78.9%) RR 1.49
(1.23 to 1.80)
60/114 (52.6%) 258 more per 1,000
(from 121 more to 421 more)
Normal neurodevelopment outcomes at 1 month with Topiramate
56
(1 RCT)
not serious not serious not serious seriousb none ⨁⨁⨁○
Moderateb
11/27 (40.7%) 24/29 (82.8%) RR 2.03
(1.25 to 3.30)
11/27 (40.7%) 420 more per 1,000
(from 102 more to 937 more)
Normal neurodevelopment outcomes at 1 month with MgSO4
184
(3 RCTs)
not serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁⨁⨁
High
38/92 (41.3%) 65/92 (70.7%) RR 1.71
(1.30 to 2.21)
38/92 (41.3%) 293 more per 1,000
(from 124 more to 500 more)

CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; MgSO4: Magnesium sulphate

a. The width of the CI crosses unity in two of the articles

b. There was only one article, and the sample size is small.

c. One out of the four studies used cranial ultrasonography while the remaining three used cranial CT.

Table 6. Summary of findings.

Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI)
№ of participants
(studies)
Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments
Risk with Basic supportive care with or without placebo Risk with Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents
Survival with MgSO4 761 per 1,000 822 per 1,000
(738–913)
RR 1.08
(0.97 to 1.20)
271
(7 RCTs)
⨁⨁⨁○
Moderatea
MgSO4 probably improves survival in babies with perinatal asphyxia.
Survival with melatonin 650 per 1,000 878 per 1,000
(676–1,000)
RR 1.35
(1.04 to 1.74)
80
(1 RCT)
⨁⨁⨁○
Moderateb
Melatonin likely results in large increase in survival with melatonin, but there is a need for further RCTs to confirm this
Successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge with MgSO4 357 per 1,000 707 per 1,000
(582–856)
RR 1.98
(1.63 to 2.40)
454
(5 RCTs)
⨁⨁⨁⨁
High
Use of MgSO4 results in large increase in successful initiation of oral feeding at discharge.
Absence of AED requirements at discharge with MgSO4 305 per 1,000 439 per 1,000
(293–656)
RR 1.44
(0.96 to 2.15)
118
(2 RCTs)
⨁⨁⨁○
Moderatea
Use of MgSO4 likely results in an increase in absence of AED requirements at discharge.
Normal Neuroimaging features at Discharge with MgSO4 526 per 1,000 784 per 1,000
(647–947)
RR 1.49
(1.23 to 1.80)
228
(4 RCTs)
⨁⨁○○
Lowa,c
It is not certain if MgSO4 improves Neuroimaging features at discharge. There is a need for more studies with the use of a the same neuroimaging modality for further analysis.
Normal neurologic outcomes at 1 month with Topiramate 407 per 1,000 827 per 1,000
(509 to 1,000)
RR 2.03
(1.25 to 3.30)
56
(1 RCT)
⨁⨁⨁○
Moderateb
Topiramate probably improves neurologic outcomes at 1 month, but there is a need for further RCTs to confirm this.
Normal neurologic outcomes at 1 month with MgSO4 413 per 1,000 706 per 1,000
(537 to 913)
RR 1.71
(1.30 to 2.21)
184
(3 RCTs)
⨁⨁⨁⨁
High
Use of MgSO4 results improves neurologic outcomes at 1 month of age.

Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents compared to basic supportive care with or without placebo for Perinatal asphyxia

Patient or population: Perinatal asphyxia

Setting: LILMIC

Intervention: Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents

Comparison: Basic supportive care with or without placebo

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; MgSO4: magnesium sulphate

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.

Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.

Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

Discussion

This systematic review evaluated randomised control trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacologic neuroprotective agents without the addition of therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of PA in LILMIC. The findings suggest several pharmacologic agents show promising neuroprotective effects, improving survival and short- and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, the review also highlights a paucity of high-quality RCTs from LILMICs, on effective pharmacologic therapies for managing perinatal asphyxia in LILMIC, underscoring the urgent need for more research to identify viable and context-appropriate treatment options.

A notable observation was the temporal increase in research activity post-2014, reflecting a growing recognition of the limitations of therapeutic hypothermia in resource-limited settings [11,12]. This shift underscores the importance of alternative neuroprotective strategies where therapeutic hypothermia is either unavailable or ineffective [2].

Geographically, the studies included in this review were disproportionately conducted in Asia, particularly Pakistan, with no RCTs from sub-Saharan Africa—a region with some of the highest neonatal mortality rates due to perinatal asphyxia [2] The sole study from Egypt limits the representativeness of the African context. This regional imbalance emphasises the need for more inclusive and diverse research to inform clinical practice across low-resource settings.

Magnesium sulphate was the most frequently studied among the neuroprotective agents evaluated—magnesium sulphate, melatonin, topiramate, erythropoietin, and citicoline. It consistently demonstrated improved neurological outcomes at various follow-up intervals, including 6 and 12 months [34,37]. Magnesium sulphate action is attributed to its mechanisms, such as calcium channel blockade [4244] and N- methyl D-Aspartate (NMDA) receptor inhibition [37]—mechanisms that are hypothesised to confer neuroprotective benefits [18]. Magnesium sulphate was investigated in two-thirds of the included studies, and there is still heterogeneity in neuroprotective agents, as melatonin, topiramate, erythropoietin, and citicoline, have also been studied [18]. Each of these agents presents different mechanisms of action [18], offering a wide scope for future studies to explore their efficacy and safety in different contexts with a clinical diagnosis of perinatal asphyxia.

The meta-analysis identified several clinically relevant outcomes, including survival rates, initiation of oral feeding, absence of seizure activity at discharge, and neuroimaging findings. While magnesium sulphate showed consistent neuroprotective benefits in most outcomes, it did not significantly improve survival or neurodevelopment at 6 and 12 months. Conversely, melatonin was associated with improved survival—consistent with findings from high-income countries where it is often used as an adjunct to therapeutic hypothermia [45]. Erythropoietin, however, did not significantly reduce mortality, aligning with previous reviews by Pan et al. [46] and individual studies such as Malla et al [36].

Several included trials reported improved neurological outcomes, such as earlier initiation of oral feeding at discharge and reduced reliance on anticonvulsants [17,33,35,39,41]. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis, which was likely driven by the inconsistent effects of erythropoietin compared to the more favourable and consistent results observed with magnesium sulphate. This aligns with previous findings indicating stronger neuroprotective effects of magnesium [47]. The variability across studies may be attributed to differences in pharmacokinetics and mechanisms of action among the various agents.

In line with prior systematic reviews [48], most pharmacologic agents included in this review demonstrated improved seizure control—an essential clinical outcome in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. In contrast, the meta-analysis by Pan et al. [46] reported that erythropoietin did not significantly reduce mortality or improve neurological outcomes. This discrepancy could be due to variations in dosing regimens or timing of administration across studies. Nonetheless, erythropoietin was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events, suggesting it is a relatively safe intervention. Its potential neuroprotective benefits may depend on specific factors such as dosage, timing of treatment, and the severity of the neonatal hypoxic insult.

Most of the pharmacologic agents reviewed were associated with improved seizure control, fewer abnormal neuroimaging findings at discharge or within the first month, and better neurological outcomes at one month of age. Longitudinal studies on individual agents—such as topiramate (up to 3 months), magnesium sulphate (6 and 12 months), and erythropoietin (up to 19 months)—reported sustained neurodevelopmental improvements. These findings suggest that pharmacologic interventions may confer long-term neuroprotective benefits beyond the acute phase of perinatal asphyxia, particularly in the cases of topiramate and erythropoietin. Such sustained effects are critical for improving long-term survival and quality of life—key endpoints in the treatment of perinatal asphyxia [2]. However, further research is needed to determine the optimal treatment protocols, including dosing, duration, and timing, to maximise the efficacy of these agents in clinical practice.

Limitations of the review

The variability in sample sizes and outcome measures, the absence of multiple studies investigating the pharmacologic agents except for magnesium sulphate, and the regional imbalance of the included studies limit the generalizability of the findings for all low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Nevertheless, this review provides a solid basis for the promising use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of perinatal asphyxia in LILMICs.

Conclusion

This review identifies magnesium sulphate as the most extensively studied pharmacologic neuroprotective agent, with emerging evidence supporting the potential of melatonin, erythropoietin, topiramate, and citicoline. By comparing these agents to standard supportive care, the review highlights their impact on critical outcomes such as survival and both short- and long-term neurodevelopment. These findings help fill an important knowledge gap and suggest scalable treatment options for resource-limited settings where therapeutic hypothermia is not feasible.

Importantly, this review lays the groundwork for future research and clinical protocol development—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—by emphasizing the need to investigate long-term outcomes and evaluate the safety and efficacy of promising and novel neuroprotective agents for managing perinatal asphyxia.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0337798.s001.docx (270.6KB, docx)
S2 File. Search Strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0337798.s002.docx (964.2KB, docx)
S3 File. Data Extraction.

(XLSX)

pone.0337798.s003.xlsx (25.6KB, xlsx)
S4 File. JBI Checklist.

(XLSX)

pone.0337798.s004.xlsx (16.6KB, xlsx)
S5 File. Funnel plots for Outcomes used in the Meta-analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0337798.s005.docx (293.5KB, docx)
S6 File. Studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded.

(DOCX)

pone.0337798.s006.docx (140.8KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

VAA, AAA, AI, LBA, TA, MAO, USA, VIC got a grant from Nigerian Institute of Medical Research Foundation for the work. Grant Number: NF-GMTP-24-152809 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Newborn mortality. [Cited 2024 September 8]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/newborn-mortality
  • 2.Usman F, Imam A, Farouk ZL, Dayyabu AL. Newborn mortality in sub-saharan africa: why is perinatal asphyxia still a major cause? Ann Glob Health. 2019;85(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gillam-Krakauer M, Gowen Jr C. Birth asphyxia. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Odd D, Heep A, Luyt K, Draycott T. Hypoxic-ischemic brain injury: Planned delivery before intrapartum events. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2017;10(4):347–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Groenendaal F, van Bel F. Perinatal asphyxia in term and late preterm infants. 2024.
  • 6.Health - United Nations Sustainable Development. [Cited 2024 February 23]. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/
  • 7.National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2021, Survey Findings Report. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Shepherd E, Salam RA, Middleton P, Han S, Makrides M, McIntyre S, et al. Neonatal interventions for preventing cerebral palsy: an overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;6(6):CD012409. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012409.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mathew JL, Kaur N, Dsouza JM. Therapeutic hypothermia in neonatal hypoxic encephalopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aneja S, Sharma S. Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy in low resource settings—time to stop cooling?. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(9):e1187-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thayyil S, Pant S, Montaldo P, Shukla D, Oliveira V, Ivain P, et al. Hypothermia for moderate or severe neonatal encephalopathy in low-income and middle-income countries (HELIX): a randomised controlled trial in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(9):e1273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bellos I, Devi U, Pandita A. Therapeutic hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis. Neonatology. 2022;119(3):300–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ekwochi U, Asinobi NI, Osuorah CDI, Ndu IK, Ifediora C, Amadi OF, et al. Incidence and predictors of mortality among newborns with perinatal asphyxia: a 4-year prospective study of newborns delivered in health care facilities in Enugu, South-East Nigeria. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. 2017;11:117955651774664. doi: 10.1177/117955651774664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Egharevba OI, Kayode-Adedeji BO, Alikah SO. Perinatal asphyxia in a rural Nigerian hospital: Incidence and determinants of early outcome. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2018;11(2):179–83. doi: 10.3233/NPM-1759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ogunlesi TA, Ayeni VA, Ogunfowora OB, Jagun EO. The current pattern of facility-based perinatal and neonatal mortality in Sagamu, Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2019;19(4):3045–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Martini S, Austin T, Aceti A, Faldella G, Corvaglia L. Free radicals and neonatal encephalopathy: mechanisms of injury, biomarkers, and antioxidant treatment perspectives. Pediatr Res. 2020;87(5):823–33. doi: 10.1038/s41390-019-0639-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sajid NK, Junaid M, Ahmed S. Therapeutic efficacy of magnesium sulphate on neurological outcome of neonates with severe birth asphyxia. Journal of University Medical & Dental College. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pedroza-García KA, Calderón-Vallejo D, Quintanar JL. Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy: Perspectives of Neuroprotective and Neuroregenerative Treatments. Neuropediatrics. 2022;53(6):402–17. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1755235 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):420–31. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brown D. A Review of the PubMed PICO Tool: Using Evidence-Based Practice in Health Education. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(4):496–8. doi: 10.1177/1524839919893361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Barker TH, Stone JC, Sears K, Klugar M, Tufanaru C, Leonardi-Bee J, et al. The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):494–506. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic Reviews of Interventions versions 65. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley; 2019. doi: 10.1002/9781119536604 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Page M, Higgins J, Sterne J. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in a meta-analysis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Skoetz N, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ahmad QM, Chishti AL, Waseem N. Role of melatonin in management of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy in newborns: A randomized control trial. J Pak Med Assoc [Internet]. 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326840629 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Akther N, Monir Hossain M, Ferdous Jahangir A, Kanta SI, Masud SM. Role of Topiramete in Moderate to Severe Perinatal Asphyxia-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. 35;DS. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bhat MA, Charoo BA, Bhat JI, Ahmad SM, Ali SW, Mufti M-U-H. Magnesium sulfate in severe perinatal asphyxia: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2009;123(5):e764-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-3642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Iqbal N, Younus J, Malik M, Fatima B, Imran A, Maqbool S, et al. The neuroprotective efficacy of postnatal magnesium sulfate in term or near-term infants with moderate-to-severe birth asphyxia. Cureus. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mahmood T, Zulfiqar R, Farah T, Saeed T. Effect of postnatal magnesium sulfate infusion on neurological outcome of term neonates with severe perinatal asphyxia. JRMC. 2015;19. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Malla RR, Asimi R, Teli MA, Shaheen F, Bhat MA. Erythropoietin monotherapy in perinatal asphyxia with moderate to severe encephalopathy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2017;37(5):596–601. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Prakash R, Savitha MR, Krishnamurthy B. Neurodevelopmental Outcome at 12 Months of Postnatal Magnesium Sulphate Therapy for Perinatal Asphyxia. J Nepal Paedtr Soc. 2017;36(3):256–62. doi: 10.3126/jnps.v36i3.15565 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rahman M, Baset A, Al-Miraj AK, Rahman M, Ashikur R, Haque A. Effectiveness of magnesium sulphate in term neonate with perinatal asphyxia: A study in Faridpur Medical College Hospital, Faridpur, Bangladesh. European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research. 2015;8(3):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Amir RASHID, Nousheen FATIMA, Asim ASIM, Ayesha KHALID, Agha Shabbir ALI. Role Of Magnesium Sulphate In Short Term Neurological Outcome Of Perinatal Asphyxia. Pak Postgrad Med J. 2015;26(1):2–5. doi: 10.51642/ppmj.v26i1.168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Salamah A, El Amrousy D, Elsheikh M, Mehrez M. Citicoline in hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy in neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Ital J Pediatr. 2023;49(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Siddiqui MA, Butt TK. Role of Intravenous Magnesium Sulphate in Term Neonates with Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) in a Low-income Country: A Randomised Clinical Trial. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31(7):817–20. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2021.07.817 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tang J, He A, Li N, Chen X, Zhou X, Fan X. Magnesium sulfate-mediated vascular relaxation and calcium channel activity in placental vessels different from nonplacental vessels. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(14). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mathew AA, Panonnummal R. ’Magnesium’-the master cation-as a drug-possibilities and evidences. Biometals. 2021;34(5):955–86. doi: 10.1007/s10534-021-00328-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lingam I. Magnesium sulphate neuroprotection in neonatal encephalopathy. UCL (University College London); 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Aly H, Elmahdy H, El-Dib M, Rowisha M, Awny M, El-Gohary T, et al. Melatonin use for neuroprotection in perinatal asphyxia: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Perinatol. 2015;35(3):186–91. doi: 10.1038/jp.2014.186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pan J-J, Wu Y, Liu Y, Cheng R, Chen X-Q, Yang Y. The effect of erythropoietin on neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Front Pediatr. 2023;10:1074287. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.1074287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nanda AK, Jalan A, Pradhan SK, Kumar TVR, Pradhan PC. Effect of magnesium sulphate infusion on neonatal outcomes in babies with perinatal asphyxia. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2022;6(S2):13064–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ivain P, Montaldo P, Khan A, Elagovan R, Burgod C, Morales MM, et al. Erythropoietin monotherapy for neuroprotection after neonatal encephalopathy in low-to-middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinatol. 2021;41(9):2134–40. doi: 10.1038/s41372-021-01132-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stefan Grosek

15 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Ayeni,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

  • Statistical part should be clarified whether a staticians was a part of the the team.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stefan Grosek, Ph.D., M.D.,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2 Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“VAA, AAA, AI, LBA, TA, MAO, USA, VIC got a grant from Nigerian Institute of Medical Research Foundation for the work. Grant Number: NF-GMTP-24-152809”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors

Positive comments came out from both reviewers, however on of them wants to know if statistical approach is appropriate. Therefore I would like to ask you to explain whay this statistics was used and if statistician is part of of teams who prepared this paper.

Kind regards

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I congratulate the authors for a well and meticulously conducted research. I have the following points to make:

1. better keywords can be selected which are not a part of the title.

2. forest plot for different outcomes have not been provided.

3. Conclusion heading does not have complete text.

Reviewer #2: The paper by Victor Ayodeji Ayeni et al is a systematic review and metanalysis of eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2000 and 2024 on various pharmacologic neuroprotective agents for the treatment of perinatal asphyxia compared with placebo or standard care, excluding therapeutic hypothermia, in LILMICs. Data on survival and neurodevelopmental outcomes are analysed. The article fulfils some of the criteria for publication: the authors claim it is an original work and the results reported have not been published elsewhere. In the aspect of statistical analysis, I would very much appreciate if the article could be subjected to an expert on the field. The conclusions are presented in an understandable and appropriate fashion and are supported by the given data. The article is is written in good intelligible English. The research meets the applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Minor suggestions: why are there two different abbreviations used since I believe there could be only one: LMIC and LILMIC?

In the materials the Table 6 seems not in the appropriate form, it is not possible to read the text. Also, the references are missing, there is only minor part appearing at the end of the available materials.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dr Ruchi Rai

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of Manuscript Number PONE.docx

pone.0337798.s007.docx (13.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Dec 4;20(12):e0337798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337798.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Oct 2025

1. Statistical part should be clarified whether a statistician was a part of the team.

Yes, one of the authors is indeed a Statistician and she was involved with the process of the systematic review from the beginning, through the meta-analysis and up till submission: Olunike Rebecca Abodunrin. The appropriate statistical methods were used and verified by the statistician on the team.

2. Why are there two different abbreviations used since I believe there could be only one: LMIC and LILMIC?

The review focused on low-income and lower middle-income countries (LILMICs) rather than low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). We decided to focus on LILMICs for better homogeneity of the included countries, as it was known that upper middle-income countries (which are part of LMIC but not part of LILMIC) have distinctive qualities, which may not be shared by pure LILMIC. However, LMICs were mentioned in the Background aspects of the Manuscript at points where we were referring to previous work and publications, which focused on LMIC (which included our subject area of LILMIC). The appearances of LMICs from referenced texts were found on pages 2-4.

3. In the materials the Table 6 seems not in the appropriate form, it is not possible to read the text. Also, the references are missing, there is only minor part appearing at the end of the available materials.

The font has been increased in size for both Tables 5 and 6, shown on pages 24-27

4. Line 33 on page 1, the spelling of “Biostatistics” was corrected.

5. Please state what role the funders took in the study.

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

The captions for the Supporting Information files are now included at the end of the manuscript, and supplementary files 1-6 (S1 – S6) have been re-submitted.

7. Reviewer 2: Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Yes, one of the authors is indeed a Statistician and she was involved with the process of the systematic review from the beginning, through the meta-analysis and up till submission: Olunike Rebecca Abodunrin. The appropriate statistical methods were used and verified by the statistician on the team.

8. Reviewer 1: better keywords can be selected which are not a part of the title

The keywords section has now been updated as follows: perinatal asphyxia, neonatal encephalopathy, pharmacologic neuroprotective agents, magnesium sulphate, neurodevelopmental outcomes, low-income and lower-middle-income countries

9. Reviewer1: forest plot for different outcomes have not been provided.

These are shown in Figures 2 – 12.

10. Reviewer 1: Conclusion heading does not have complete text.

This has been checked.

11. I have confirmed the following: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

12. I have included the following: "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files".

12. The identifying information has been removed from the S3_Data extraction, and it has been resubmitted, along with S1, S2 and S4, because it was noted that the previous submission before review was retained because of similarity in names.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

pone.0337798.s009.pdf (155KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Stefan Grosek

14 Nov 2025

Pharmacologic neuroprotective agents for the treatment of perinatal asphyxia in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PONE-D-25-16916R1

Dear Dr. Ayeni,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stefan Grosek, Ph.D., M.D.,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors

Both reviewers found that all issuess have been addressed and implented in the paper. Therefore I suggest for acceptance of the paper.

Kind regards

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Ruchi RaiNone

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Stefan Grosek

PONE-D-25-16916R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayeni,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Stefan Grosek

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0337798.s001.docx (270.6KB, docx)
    S2 File. Search Strategy.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0337798.s002.docx (964.2KB, docx)
    S3 File. Data Extraction.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0337798.s003.xlsx (25.6KB, xlsx)
    S4 File. JBI Checklist.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0337798.s004.xlsx (16.6KB, xlsx)
    S5 File. Funnel plots for Outcomes used in the Meta-analysis.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0337798.s005.docx (293.5KB, docx)
    S6 File. Studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0337798.s006.docx (140.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review of Manuscript Number PONE.docx

    pone.0337798.s007.docx (13.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0337798.s009.pdf (155KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES