Neonatal examination and screening trial (NEST): a randomised, controlled,switchback trial of alternative policies for low risk infants

Citation
Cma. Glazener et al., Neonatal examination and screening trial (NEST): a randomised, controlled,switchback trial of alternative policies for low risk infants, BR MED J, 318(7184), 1999, pp. 627-631
Citations number
14
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
ISSN journal
09598138 → ACNP
Volume
318
Issue
7184
Year of publication
1999
Pages
627 - 631
Database
ISI
SICI code
0959-8138(19990306)318:7184<627:NEAST(>2.0.ZU;2-R
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of one rather than two hospital neo natal examinations in detection of abnormalities. Design Randomised controlled switchback trial. Setting Postnatal wards in a teaching hospital in north east Scotland. Participants All infants delivered at the hospital between March 1993 and F ebruary 1995. Intervention A policy of one neonatal screening examination compared with a policy of two. Main outcome measures Congenital conditions diagnosed in hospital; results of community health assessments at 8 weeks and 8 months; outpatient referra ls; inpatient admissions; use of general practioner services; focused analy sis of outcomes for suspected hip and heart abnormalities. Results 4835 babies were allocated to receive one screening examination (on e screen policy) and 4877 to receive two (two screen policy). More congenit al conditions were suspected at discharge among babies examined twice (9.9 v 8.3 diagnoses per 100 babies; 95% confidence interval for difference 0.3 to 2.7). There was no no overall significant difference between the groups in use of community, outpatient, or inpatient resources or in health care r eceived. Although more babies who were examined twice attended orthopaedic outpatient clinics (340 (7%) v 289 (6%)), particularly for suspected congen ital dislocation of the hip (176 (3.6/100 babies) v 137 (2.8/100 babies); d ifference - 0.8; - 1.5 to 0.1), there was no significant difference in the number of babies who required active management (12 (0.2%) v 15 (0.3%)). Conclusions Despite more suspected abnormalities, there was no evidence of net health gain from a policy of two hospital neonatal examinations, Adopti on of a single examination policy would save resources both during the post natal hospital stay and through fewer outpatient consultations.