4.3 Review

Analysis of neonatal mortality risk factors in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

期刊

JORNAL DE PEDIATRIA
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 519-530

出版社

SOC BRASIL PEDIATRIA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2018.12.014

关键词

Neonatal mortality; Risk factors; Brazil; Review systematic; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [129015/2017-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify, using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, which risk factors are significantly associated with neonatal mortality in Brazil, and to build a comprehensive national analysis on neonatal mortality. Sources: This review included observational studies on neonatal mortality, performed between 2000 and 2018 in Brazilian cities. The MEDLINE, Elsevier, Cochrane, LILACS, SciELO, and Open-Grey databases were used. For the qualitative analysis, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used. For the quantitative analysis, the natural logarithms of the risk measures and their confidence intervals were used, as well as the DerSimonian and Laird method as a random effects model, and the Mantel-Haenszel model for heterogeneity estimation. A confidence level of 95% was considered. Summary of findings: The qualitative analysis resulted in six studies of low and four studies of intermediate-low bias risk. The following exposure factors were significant: absence of partner, maternal age >= 35 years, male gender, multiple gestation, inadequate and absent prenatal care, presence of complications during pregnancy, congenital malformation in the assessed pregnancy, Apgar < 7 at the fifth minute, low and very low birth weight, gestational age <= 37 weeks, and caesarean delivery. Conclusion: The most significant risk factors presented in this study are modifiable, allowing aiming at a real reduction in neonatal deaths, which remain high in the country. (C) 2019 Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据