Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Consensus outcome rating for international neonatal resuscitation guidelines
  1. Marya L Strand1,
  2. Wendy Marie Simon2,
  3. Jonathan Wyllie3,
  4. Myra H Wyckoff4,
  5. Gary Weiner5
  1. 1 Pediatrics, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
  2. 2 Division of Life Support, American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, IL, USA
  3. 3 Paediatrics, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
  4. 4 Pediatrics, UT Southwestern Medical, Dallas, Texas, USA
  5. 5 Pediatrics-Neonatal, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marya L Strand, Pediatrics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; mstrand2{at}


The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation uses the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group method to evaluate the quality of evidence and the strength of treatment recommendations. This method requires guideline developers to use a numerical rating of the importance of each specified outcome. There are currently no uniform reporting guidelines or outcome measures for neonatal resuscitation science. We describe consensus outcome ratings from a survey of 64 neonatal resuscitation guideline developers representing seven international resuscitation councils. Among 25 specified outcomes, 10 were considered critical for decision-making. The five most critically rated outcomes were death, moderate-severe neurodevelopmental impairment, blindness, cerebral palsy and deafness. These data inform outcome rankings for systematic reviews of neonatal resuscitation science and international guideline development using the GRADE methodology.

  • resuscitation, neonatal
  • outcome
  • neonatology
  • delivery room

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors The study was conceived by Drs Strand and Weiner. Data were collected, evaluated and analysed by all authors. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and approved of final draft.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.