2.

In‐service neonatal emergency care training versus standard care for healthcare professionals
Participants: doctors, nurses and midwives Settings: delivery room (Sri Lanka) Intervention: 4‐day essential newborn care training Comparison: usual care
Outcomes	Absolute effect* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)†¶
	Without training (usual care)	With in‐service training
Preparedness for resuscitation‡ Scale: 0 to 100% (better indicated by higher values) Follow‐up: 90 days	Mean percentage: 10.46%	Mean percentage: 19.29% Mean percentage change: 8.83% (6.41% to 11.25%)	‐	⊕⊕⊕⊝a§ Moderate
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; GRADE: GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. * The risk WITHOUT the intervention is based on the control group risk. The corresponding risk WITH the intervention (and the 95% confidence interval for the difference) is based on the overall relative effect (and its 95% confidence interval).
†About the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).¶ High: This research provides a very good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different# is low. Moderate: This research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different# is moderate. Low: This research provides some indication of the likely effect. However, the likelihood that it will be substantially different# is high. Very low: This research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different# is very high. ‡Improvement also observed in assessment of breathing (however, re‐analysis to calculate intervention effect was not done owing to baseline imbalance between study groups). §See Appendix 3 for evidence profile (detailed judgements of certainty of evidence). ¶This is sometimes referred to as ‘quality of evidence’ or ‘confidence in the estimate’. #Substantially different = a large enough difference that it might affect a decision.
aDowngraded from high to moderate because of risk of bias (methods of allocation sequence generation and concealment were not reported; 'unit of analysis error' was present).