Summary of findings 2. Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programme compared with basic resuscitation training for reduction in neonatal mortality.

Standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programme compared with basic resuscitation training for reduction in neonatal mortality
Patient or population: Neonates delivered stratified by healthcare professionals involved in attending deliveries Settings: healthcare facility or home setting in low‐income settings of the developing world Intervention: SFNRT Comparison: basic resuscitation training
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Basic resuscitation training	SFNRT
Early neonatal mortality (mortality in the first 7 days of life)	Low‐risk population		RR 0.88 (0.78 to 1.00)	66,162 neonates (3 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate	The quality of evidence was downgraded 1 level because of absence of blinding of intervention and inconsistencies across studies
	21 per 1000	18 per 1000 (16 to 21)
	Medium‐risk population
	30.5 per 1000	27 per 1000 (24 to 30.5)
	High‐risk population
	645 per 1000 VLBW infants	568 per 1000 VLBW infants (503 to 645)
Early neonatal mortality ‐ traditional birth attendants	Low‐risk population		RR 0.79 (0.65 to 0.95)	27,673 neonates (3 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate	The quality of evidence was downgraded 1 level because the participants were not blinded for the intervention
	22 per 1000	17 per 1000 (14 to 21)
	Medium‐risk population
	31 per 1000	18 per 1000 (95% CI 24 to 29)
	High‐risk population
	721 per 1000	570 per 1000 (469 to 685)
Early neonatal mortality ‐ nurse/midwife	Low‐risk population		RR 1.03 (0.81 to 1.31)	20,250 neonates (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate	The quality of evidence was downgraded 1 level because the participants were not blinded for the intervention
	18 per 1000	19 per 1000 (15 to 24)
	High‐risk population
	632 per 1000	651 per 1000 (512 to 828)
Early neonatal mortality ‐ physician	Low‐risk population		RR 1.43 (0.98 to 2.08)	5986 neonates (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	The quality of evidence was downgraded 2 levels because the participants were not blinded for the intervention and inconsistencies among studies
	20 per 1000	29 per 1000 (19.6 to 42)
	High‐risk population
	365 per 1000 VLBW infants	522 per 1000 VLBW infants (358 to 759)
Early neonatal mortality ‐ family/unattended	Low‐risk population		RR 0.71 (0.54 to 0.94)	12,253 neonates (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate	The quality of evidence was downgraded 1 level because the participants were not blinded for the intervention
	25 per 1000	18 per 1000 (13.5 to 24)
	High‐risk population
	667 per 1000 VLBW infants	474 per 1000 VLBW infants (360 to 627)
Late neonatal mortality (mortality at > 7 days up to 28 days of life)	At‐risk population		RR 0.47 (0.20 to 1.11)	3274 neonates (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	The quality of evidence was downgraded 2 levels because the participants were not blinded for the intervention, the intervention also included administration of single dose of antibiotic if clinical concern of infection and facilitated referral to healthcare facility. The evidence was available from only 1 study
	9 per 1000	4 per 1000 (1.8 to 10)
Neonatal mortality at 28 days	At‐risk population		RR 0.55 (0.33 to 0.91)	3355 neonates (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	The quality of evidence was downgraded 2 levels because the participants were not blinded for the intervention, the intervention also included administration of single dose of antibiotic if clinical concern of infection and facilitated referral to healthcare facility. The evidence was available from only 1 study
	40 per 1000	22 per 1000 (13.2 to 36)
*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 training; VLBW: very low birthweight.
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.