The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Level and Volume of Neonatal Intensive Care and Mortality in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a large increase in both the number of neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in community hospitals and the complexity of the cases treated in these units. We examined differences in neonatal mortality among infants with very low birth weight (below 1500 g) among NICUs with various levels of care and different volumes of very-low-birth-weight infants. METHODS: We linked birth certificates, hospital discharge abstracts (including interhospital transfers), and fetal and infant death certificates to assess neonatal mortality rates among 48,237 very-low-birth-weight infants who were born in California hospitals between 1991 and 2000. RESULTS: Mortality rates among very-low-birth-weight infants varied according to both the volume of patients and the level of care at the delivery hospital. The effect of volume also varied according to the level of care. As compared with a high level of care and a high volume of very-low-birth-weight infants (more than 100 per year), lower levels of care and lower volumes (except for those of two small groups of hospitals) were associated with significantly higher odds ratios for death, ranging from 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.37) to 2.72 (95% CI, 2.37 to 3.12). Less than one quarter of very-low-birth-weight deliveries occurred in facilities with NICUs that offered a high level of care and had a high volume, but 92% of very-low-birth-weight deliveries occurred in urban areas with more than 100 such deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality among very-low-birth-weight infants was lowest for deliveries that occurred in hospitals with NICUs that had both a high level of care and a high volume of such patients. Our results suggest that increased use of such facilities might reduce mortality among very-low-birth-weight infants.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
COMMITTEE ON FETUS AND NEWBORN, Barfield, W. D., Papile, L.-A., Baley, J. E., Benitz, W., Cummings, J., Carlo, W. A., Kumar, P., Polin, R. A., Tan, R. C., et al. (2012) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1999 · Cited by 959
The importance of assessing the fit of logistic regression models: a case study.
Hosmer, D. W., Taber, S., & Lemeshow, S. (1991) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.81.12.1630 · Cited by 496
Cited by
COMMITTEE ON FETUS AND NEWBORN, Barfield, W. D., Papile, L.-A., Baley, J. E., Benitz, W., Cummings, J., Carlo, W. A., Kumar, P., Polin, R. A., Tan, R. C., et al. (2012) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2012-1999 · Cited by 959
Survival differences following lung transplantation among US transplant centers
Thabut, G., Christie, J. D., Kremers, W. K., Fournier, M., & Halpern, S. D. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.885 · Cited by 148
Metadata
- Authors
- Phibbs, C. S., Baker, L. C., Caughey, A. B., Danielsen, B., Schmitt, S. K., & Phibbs, R. H.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2007-05-24
- Volume
- 356
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2165-2175
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W1986648662
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Level and Volume of Neonatal Intensive Care and Mortality in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa065029
- The paper
- Phibbs, C. S., Baker, L. C., Caughey, A. B., Danielsen, B., Schmitt, S. K., & Phibbs, R. H. (2007). Level and Volume of Neonatal Intensive Care and Mortality in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa065029
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.