Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 826

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Continuing Value of the Apgar Score for the Assessment of Newborn Infants

Casey, Brian M., McIntire, Donald D., Leveno, Kenneth J.·2001·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 10-point Apgar score has been used to assess the condition and prognosis of newborn infants throughout the world for almost 50 years. Some investigators have proposed that measurement of pH in umbilical-artery blood is a more objective method of assessing newborn infants. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort analysis of 151,891 live-born singleton infants without malformations who were delivered at 26 weeks of gestation or later at an inner-city public hospital between January 1988 and December 1998. Paired Apgar scores and umbilical-artery blood pH values were determined for 145,627 infants to assess which test best predicted neonatal death during the first 28 days after birth. RESULTS: For 13,399 infants born before term (at 26 to 36 weeks of gestation), the neonatal mortality rate was 315 per 1000 for infants with five-minute Apgar scores of 0 to 3, as compared with 5 per 1000 for infants with five-minute Apgar scores of 7 to 10. For 132,228 infants born at term (37 weeks of gestation or later), the mortality rate was 244 per 1000 for infants with five-minute Apgar scores of 0 to 3, as compared with 0.2 per 1000 for infants with five-minute Apgar scores of 7 to 10. The risk of neonatal death in term infants with five-minute Apgar scores of 0 to 3 (relative risk, 1460; 95 percent confidence interval, 835 to 2555) was eight times the risk in term infants with umbilical-artery blood pH values of 7.0 or less (180; 95 percent confidence interval, 97 to 334). CONCLUSIONS: The Apgar scoring system remains as relevant for the prediction of neonatal survival today as it was almost 50 years ago.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm200102153440701

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 826

Metadata

Authors
Casey, B. M., McIntire, D. D., & Leveno, K. J.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2001-02-15
Volume
344
Issue
7
Pages
467-471
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2312865146
Cited by
826
References
1
FWCI
14.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Continuing Value of the Apgar Score for the Assessment of Newborn Infants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200102153440701
The paper
Casey, B. M., McIntire, D. D., & Leveno, K. J. (2001). The Continuing Value of the Apgar Score for the Assessment of Newborn Infants. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200102153440701

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.