Summary of findings for the main comparison. Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation programme (SFNRT) compared with no SFNRT.
| Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation programme (SFNRT) compared with no SFNRT | ||||||
|
Patient or population: birth attendants Settings: hospitals in Canada Intervention: SFNRT Comparison: no SFNRT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| No SFNRT | SFNRT | |||||
|
Knowledge acquisition (Immediately after SFNRT) |
Population at risk | RR 5.96 (3.60 to 9.87) | 166 participants (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of serious risk of bias (high risk of selection bias, unit of analysis error and serious imprecision (evidence available from a single small study)) | |
| 153 per 1000 | 911 per 1000 (551 to 1510) |
|||||
|
Skills Acquisition (Immediately after SFNRT) |
Population at risk | RR 170.93 (10.78 to 2710.85) | 166 participants (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of serious risk of bias (high risk of selection bias, unit of analysis error and serious imprecision (evidence available from a single small study)) | |
| 0 per 1000 | Not estimable | |||||
|
Knowledge retention (6 months after SFNRT) |
Population at risk | RR 3.60 (2.43 to 5.35) | 166 participants (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of serious risk of bias (high risk of selection bias, unit of analysis error and serious imprecision (evidence available from a single small study)) | |
| 235 per 1000 | 846 per 1000 (571 to 1257) |
|||||
|
Skills retention (6 months after SFNRT) |
Population at risk | RR not estimable as there were no events in the control or the intervention groups | 166 participants (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low | The quality of evidence was downgraded 3 levels because of serious risk of bias (high risk of selection bias, unit of analysis error and serious imprecision (evidence available from a single small study)) | |
| 0 per 1000 | Not estimable | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; SFNRT: standardised formal neonatal resuscitation programme. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||