Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study concluded that full trials in separate settings are feasible, but it is inappropriate to combine neonatal with paediatric intensive care due to differences in treatment protocols and outcome measures.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Lyvonne N Tume 1,*, Kerry Woolfall 2, Barbara Arch 3, Louise Roper 2, Elizabeth Deja 2, Ashley P Jones 3, Lynne Latten 4, Nazima Pathan 5, Helen Eccleson 3, Helen Hickey 3, Roger Parslow 6, Jennifer Preston 7, Anne Beissel 8, Izabela Andrzejewska 9, Chris Gale 10, Frederic V Valla 11, Jon Dorling 12

1 School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, UK
2 Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
3 Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
4 Nutrition and Dietetics, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
5 Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
6 School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
7 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Institute of Translational Medicine (Child Health), Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
8 Neonatal Unit, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon-Bron, France
9 Neonatal Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK
10 Neonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK
11 Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon-Bron, France
12 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
* Corresponding author Email: l.n.tume@salford.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document