The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical assessment of infant colour at delivery
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Use of video recordings of newborn infants to determine: (1) if clinicians agreed whether infants were pink; and (2) the pulse oximeter oxygen saturation (Sp o 2) at which infants first looked pink. Methods: Selected clips from video recordings of infants taken immediately after delivery were shown to medical and nursing staff. The infants received varying degrees of resuscitation (including none) and were monitored with pulse oximetry. The oximeter readings were obscured to observers but known to the investigators. A timer was visible and the sound was inaudible. The observers were asked to indicate whether each infant was pink at the beginning, became pink during the clip, or was never pink. If adjudged to turn pink during the clip, observers recorded the time this occurred and the corresponding Sp o 2 was determined. Results: 27 clinicians assessed videos of 20 infants (mean (SD) gestation 31(4) weeks). One infant (5%) was perceived to be pink by all observers. The number of clinicians who thought each of the remaining 19 infants were never pink varied from 1 (4%) to 22 (81%). Observers determined the 10 infants with a maximum Sp o 2 ⩾95% never pink on 17% (46/270) of occasions. The Sp o 2 at which individual infants were perceived to turn pink varied from 10% to 100%. Conclusion: Among clinicians observing the same videos there was disagreement about whether newborn infants looked pink with wide variation in the Sp o 2 when they were considered to become pink.
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
Cited by
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 1. Executive summary
Nolan, J. P., Soar, J., Zideman, D. A., Biarent, D., Bossaert, L. L., Deakin, C., Koster, R. W., Wyllie, J., & Böttiger, B. (2010) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.021 · Cited by 1,375
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015
Perkins, G. D., Handley, A. J., Koster, R. W., Castrén, M., Smyth, M. A., Olasveengen, T., Monsieurs, K. G., Raffay, V., Gräsner, J.-T., Wenzel, V., et al. (2015) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.015 · Cited by 1,287
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015
Monsieurs, K. G., Nolan, J. P., Bossaert, L. L., Greif, R., Maconochie, I. K., Nikolaou, N. I., Perkins, G. D., Soar, J., Truhlář, A., Wyllie, J., et al. (2015) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.038 · Cited by 915
Defining the Reference Range for Oxygen Saturation for Infants After Birth
Dawson, J. A., Kamlin, C. O. F., Vento, M., Wong, C., Cole, T. J., Donath, S. M., Davis, P. G., & Morley, C. J. (2010) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1510 · Cited by 553
Self-citationEuropean Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015
Wyllie, J., Bruinenberg, J., Roehr, C. C., Rüdiger, M., Trevisanuto, D., & Urlesberger, B. (2015) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.029 · Cited by 489
Metadata
- Authors
- O’Donnell, C. P. F., Kamlin, C. O. F., Davis, P. G., Carlin, J. B., & Morley, C. J.
- Venue
- Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-07-05
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- F465-F467
- ISSN
- 1359-2998 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2052
- OpenAlex
- W2004795440
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.72
- 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: Clinical assessment of infant colour at delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/adc.2007.120634
- The paper
- O’Donnell, C. P. F., Kamlin, C. O. F., Davis, P. G., Carlin, J. B., & Morley, C. J. (2007). Clinical assessment of infant colour at delivery. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.120634
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.