The Experts below are selected from a list of 192 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Joy E Lawn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Diagnostic Accuracy of Neonatal Assessment for Gestational Age Determination: A Systematic Review
Pediatrics, 2017Co-Authors: Pratik Panchal, Lian Folger, Hilary Whelan, Rachel Whelan, Bernard Rosner, Hannah Blencowe, Joy E LawnAbstract:CONTEXT: An estimated 15 million neonates are born preterm annually. However, in low- and middle-income countries, the dating of pregnancy is frequently unreliable or unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of neonatal Assessments to estimate gestational age (GA). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, POPLINE, and World Health Organization library databases. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of live-born infants in which researchers compared neonatal signs or Assessments for GA estimation with a reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data on study population, design, bias, reference standard, test methods, accuracy, agreement, validity, correlation, and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred and fifty-six studies were screened and 78 included. We identified 18 Newborn Assessments for GA estimation (ranging 4 to 23 signs). Compared with ultrasound, the Dubowitz score dated 95% of pregnancies within ±2.6 weeks (n = 7 studies), while the Ballard score overestimated GA (0.4 weeks) and dated pregnancies within ±3.8 weeks (n = 9). Compared with last menstrual period, the Dubowitz score dated 95% of pregnancies within ± 2.9 weeks (n = 6 studies) and the Ballard score, ±4.2 weeks (n = 5). Assessments with fewer signs tended to be less accurate. A few studies showed a tendency for Newborn Assessments to overestimate GA in preterm infants and underestimate GA in growth-restricted infants. LIMITATIONS: Poor study quality and few studies with early ultrasound-based reference. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts in low- and middle-income countries should focus on improving dating in pregnancy through ultrasound and improving validity in growth-restricted populations. Where ultrasound is not possible, increased efforts are needed to develop simpler yet specific approaches for Newborn Assessment through new combinations of existing parameters, new signs, or technology.
-
neonatal resuscitation and immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths a systematic review meta analysis and delphi estimation of mortality effect
BMC Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Simon Cousens, Stephen Wall, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Christopher J Gill, Joy E LawnAbstract:Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously “birth asphyxia”) and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic Assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. To estimate the mortality effect of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and Newborn Assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.
-
Neonatal resuscitation and immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths: a systematic review, meta-analysis and Delphi estimation of mortality effect
BMC Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Simon Cousens, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Stephen N Wall, Christopher Gill, Joy E LawnAbstract:Background Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously “birth asphyxia”) and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic Assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. Objective To estimate the mortality effect of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. Methods We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. Results We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. Conclusion Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and Newborn Assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. Funding This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.
Henry J. Rozycki - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score vs Apgar: Newborn Assessment and predictive ability
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Joseph Khoury, Aditi Gupta, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:ObjectiveTo test the non-inferiority of an alternative to the Apgar score.Study designThe Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score (NRAS) was recorded in parallel to the Apgar score by a resuscitation team at deliveries. Correlation between the systems was assessed, as well as the predictive ability of NRAS and Apgar scores for mortality or short-term morbidities.ResultsA total of 340 infants were in the study group. The two scores correlated strongly (r = 0.87 and 0.83 at 1 and 5 min, respectively). Those needing ventilation at 48 h of life had a 5-min NRAS
-
Correction: Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score vs Apgar: Newborn Assessment and predictive ability
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Joseph Khoury, Aditi Gupta, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:Since the publication of the above article, the authors have noted that the name of the first Item in the NRAS scoring system in Figure 1 was omitted. It is Heart Rate (C1). The authors apologise for any inconvenience caused by this error. The html and online pdf versions have now been rectified and carry the corrected Figure.
-
neonatal resuscitation and adaptation score vs apgar Newborn Assessment and predictive ability
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Aditi Gupta, Joseph D Khoury, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:To test the non-inferiority of an alternative to the Apgar score. The Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score (NRAS) was recorded in parallel to the Apgar score by a resuscitation team at deliveries. Correlation between the systems was assessed, as well as the predictive ability of NRAS and Apgar scores for mortality or short-term morbidities. A total of 340 infants were in the study group. The two scores correlated strongly (r = 0.87 and 0.83 at 1 and 5 min, respectively). Those needing ventilation at 48 h of life had a 5-min NRAS < 7 in 23/26 vs Apgar < 7 (23/36, p = 0.001). A low (0–3) 1-min NRAS score was more predictive of death, 53% vs 17%, p = 0.0065. NRAS correlates with Apgar status Assessment, and identifies Newborns who die or may require further care better than the Apgar score.
-
Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score vs Apgar: Newborn Assessment and predictive ability.
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Aditi Gupta, Joseph D Khoury, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:To test the non-inferiority of an alternative to the Apgar score. The Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score (NRAS) was recorded in parallel to the Apgar score by a resuscitation team at deliveries. Correlation between the systems was assessed, as well as the predictive ability of NRAS and Apgar scores for mortality or short-term morbidities. A total of 340 infants were in the study group. The two scores correlated strongly (r = 0.87 and 0.83 at 1 and 5 min, respectively). Those needing ventilation at 48 h of life had a 5-min NRAS
Teresa J. Witcher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score vs Apgar: Newborn Assessment and predictive ability
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Joseph Khoury, Aditi Gupta, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:ObjectiveTo test the non-inferiority of an alternative to the Apgar score.Study designThe Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score (NRAS) was recorded in parallel to the Apgar score by a resuscitation team at deliveries. Correlation between the systems was assessed, as well as the predictive ability of NRAS and Apgar scores for mortality or short-term morbidities.ResultsA total of 340 infants were in the study group. The two scores correlated strongly (r = 0.87 and 0.83 at 1 and 5 min, respectively). Those needing ventilation at 48 h of life had a 5-min NRAS
-
Correction: Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score vs Apgar: Newborn Assessment and predictive ability
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Joseph Khoury, Aditi Gupta, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:Since the publication of the above article, the authors have noted that the name of the first Item in the NRAS scoring system in Figure 1 was omitted. It is Heart Rate (C1). The authors apologise for any inconvenience caused by this error. The html and online pdf versions have now been rectified and carry the corrected Figure.
-
neonatal resuscitation and adaptation score vs apgar Newborn Assessment and predictive ability
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Aditi Gupta, Joseph D Khoury, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:To test the non-inferiority of an alternative to the Apgar score. The Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score (NRAS) was recorded in parallel to the Apgar score by a resuscitation team at deliveries. Correlation between the systems was assessed, as well as the predictive ability of NRAS and Apgar scores for mortality or short-term morbidities. A total of 340 infants were in the study group. The two scores correlated strongly (r = 0.87 and 0.83 at 1 and 5 min, respectively). Those needing ventilation at 48 h of life had a 5-min NRAS < 7 in 23/26 vs Apgar < 7 (23/36, p = 0.001). A low (0–3) 1-min NRAS score was more predictive of death, 53% vs 17%, p = 0.0065. NRAS correlates with Apgar status Assessment, and identifies Newborns who die or may require further care better than the Apgar score.
-
Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score vs Apgar: Newborn Assessment and predictive ability.
Journal of Perinatology, 2018Co-Authors: Teresa J. Witcher, Shadi Jurdi, Vidhya Kumar, Russell R. Moores, Aditi Gupta, Joseph D Khoury, Henry J. RozyckiAbstract:To test the non-inferiority of an alternative to the Apgar score. The Neonatal Resuscitation and Adaptation Score (NRAS) was recorded in parallel to the Apgar score by a resuscitation team at deliveries. Correlation between the systems was assessed, as well as the predictive ability of NRAS and Apgar scores for mortality or short-term morbidities. A total of 340 infants were in the study group. The two scores correlated strongly (r = 0.87 and 0.83 at 1 and 5 min, respectively). Those needing ventilation at 48 h of life had a 5-min NRAS
Gary L Darmstadt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
neonatal resuscitation and immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths a systematic review meta analysis and delphi estimation of mortality effect
BMC Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Simon Cousens, Stephen Wall, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Christopher J Gill, Joy E LawnAbstract:Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously “birth asphyxia”) and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic Assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. To estimate the mortality effect of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and Newborn Assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.
-
Neonatal resuscitation and immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths: a systematic review, meta-analysis and Delphi estimation of mortality effect
BMC Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Simon Cousens, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Stephen N Wall, Christopher Gill, Joy E LawnAbstract:Background Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously “birth asphyxia”) and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic Assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. Objective To estimate the mortality effect of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. Methods We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. Results We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. Conclusion Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and Newborn Assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. Funding This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.
Simon Cousens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
neonatal resuscitation and immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths a systematic review meta analysis and delphi estimation of mortality effect
BMC Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Simon Cousens, Stephen Wall, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Christopher J Gill, Joy E LawnAbstract:Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously “birth asphyxia”) and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic Assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. To estimate the mortality effect of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and Newborn Assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.
-
Neonatal resuscitation and immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation for the prevention of neonatal deaths: a systematic review, meta-analysis and Delphi estimation of mortality effect
BMC Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Simon Cousens, Susan Niermeyer, Gary L Darmstadt, Waldemar A Carlo, William J Keenan, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Stephen N Wall, Christopher Gill, Joy E LawnAbstract:Background Of 136 million babies born annually, around 10 million require assistance to breathe. Each year 814,000 neonatal deaths result from intrapartum-related events in term babies (previously “birth asphyxia”) and 1.03 million from complications of prematurity. No systematic Assessment of mortality reduction from tactile stimulation or resuscitation has been published. Objective To estimate the mortality effect of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation, and basic resuscitation on neonatal deaths due to term intrapartum-related events or preterm birth, for facility and home births. Methods We conducted systematic reviews for studies reporting relevant mortality or morbidity outcomes. Evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria adapted to provide a systematic approach to mortality effect estimates for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Meta-analysis was performed if appropriate. For interventions with low quality evidence but strong recommendation for implementation, a Delphi panel was convened to estimate effect size. Results We identified 24 studies of neonatal resuscitation reporting mortality outcomes (20 observational, 2 quasi-experimental, 2 cluster randomized controlled trials), but none of immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation alone. A meta-analysis of three facility-based studies examined the effect of resuscitation training on intrapartum-related neonatal deaths (RR= 0.70, 95%CI 0.59-0.84); this estimate was used for the effect of facility-based basic neonatal resuscitation (additional to stimulation). The evidence for preterm mortality effect was low quality and thus expert opinion was sought. In community-based studies, resuscitation training was part of packages with multiple concurrent interventions, and/or studies did not distinguish term intrapartum-related from preterm deaths, hence no meta-analysis was conducted. Our Delphi panel of 18 experts estimated that immediate Newborn Assessment and stimulation would reduce both intrapartum-related and preterm deaths by 10%, facility-based resuscitation would prevent a further 10% of preterm deaths, and community-based resuscitation would prevent further 20% of intrapartum-related and 5% of preterm deaths. Conclusion Neonatal resuscitation training in facilities reduces term intrapartum-related deaths by 30%. Yet, coverage of this intervention remains low in countries where most neonatal deaths occur and is a missed opportunity to save lives. Expert opinion supports smaller effects of neonatal resuscitation on preterm mortality in facilities and of basic resuscitation and Newborn Assessment and stimulation at community level. Further evaluation is required for impact, cost and implementation strategies in various contexts. Funding This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF, and to the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children, through Save the Children US.