Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Clinical Research›Infant Mortality
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Infant Mortality

Clinical Research · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 7 min read

Postnatal deaths from birth to 365 days after birth in a given population.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,488 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Postnatal deaths from birth to 365 days after birth in a given population. Postneonatal mortality represents deaths between 28 days and 365 days after birth (as defined by National Center for Health Statistics). Neonatal mortality represents deaths from birth to 27 days after birth.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Infant Mortalities; Mortalities, Infant; Mortality, Infant; Neonatal Mortality; Mortalities, Neonatal; Mortality, Neonatal; Neonatal Mortalities; Postneonatal Mortality.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Mortality
Narrower topics
Perinatal Mortality
See also
Fetal Death; Infant Death

Related concepts

  • Birth

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 33,349 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Infant Mortality” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 3,361 of them (10.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 17,843 records.

Reviews account for 2,499 records (7.5%) and meta-analyses for 490. Randomized controlled trials number 628 (1.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 17,843 records; 2000-2009: 5,214 records; 2010-2019: 6,931 records; 2020 onward: 3,361 records17,843through 19995,2142000-20096,9312010-20193,3612020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199917,843
2000-20095,214
2010-20196,931
2020 onward3,361
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 7.5 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.5 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 1.9 percentReviews7.5% (2,499)Meta-analyses1.5% (490)Randomized controlled trials1.9% (628)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 33,349 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews2,4997.5%
Meta-analyses4901.5%
Randomized controlled trials6281.9%

Method: PubMed query "Infant Mortality"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in clinical research

Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Survival outcomes among periviable infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing different income countries and time periods
Li YX, Hu YL, Huang X, Li J, Li X, Shi ZY, et al.
2024Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
15cc by
PMID 39807383 · DOI · PMC11726316
Mass Administration of Azithromycin to Infants in Mali to Reduce Mortality
Haidara FC, Adubra L, Abdou M, Alber D, Ashorn U, Cheung YB, et al.
2025Randomized controlled trial
Design not recorded in structured metadata
11cc by
PMID 41092331 · DOI · PMC13537731
Timing of Antenatal Corticosteroid Administration and Neonatal Outcomes
Melamed N, Murphy KE, Pylypjuk C, Sherlock R, Ethier G, Yoon EW, et al.
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
10cc by
PMID 40388165 · DOI · PMC12090034
Kenyan Neonatal Mortality Risk Predictor: Protocol for a User-Centered Design Evaluation
Nyatuka RD, Macharia P, Esther K, Siva F, Muriithi B, Rahman Jabin MS
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
6cc by
PMID 41894529 · DOI · PMC13026422

Survival outcomes among periviable infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing different income countries and time periods [1]

Meta-analysis Li YX, Hu YL, Huang X, Li J, Li X, Shi ZY, et al. · · 2024 · cited 15 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundPeriviable infants are a highly vulnerable neonatal group, and their survival rates are considerably affected by patient-, caregiver-, and institution-level factors, exhibiting wide variability across different income countries and time periods.
Closing excerpt
ID=CRD42022376367.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (292 words)

BackgroundPeriviable infants are a highly vulnerable neonatal group, and their survival rates are considerably affected by patient-, caregiver-, and institution-level factors, exhibiting wide variability across different income countries and time periods. This study aims to systematically review the literature on the survival rates of periviable infants and compare rates among countries with varied income levels and across different time periods.MethodsComprehensive searches were conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Cohort studies reporting survival outcomes by gestational age (GA) for periviable infants born between 22 + 0 and 25 + 6 weeks of gestation were considered. Paired reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence. Data pooling was achieved using random-effects meta-analyses.ResultsSixty-nine studies from 25 countries were included, covering 56,526 live births and 59,104 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Survival rates for infants born between 22 and 25 weeks of GA ranged from 7% (95% CI 5-10; 22 studies, n = 5,658; low certainty) to 68% (95% CI 63-72; 35 studies, n = 21,897; low certainty) when calculated using live births as the denominator, and from 30% (95% CI 25-36; 31 studies, n = 3,991; very low certainty) to 74% (95% CI 70-77; 48 studies, n = 17,664, very low certainty) for those admitted to NICUs. The survival rates improved over the two decades studied; however, stark contrasts were evident across countries with varying income levels.ConclusionAlthough the survival rates for periviable infants have improved over the past two decades, substantial disparities persist across different economic settings, highlighting global inequalities in perinatal health. Continued research and collaborative efforts are imperative to further improve the global survival and long-term outcomes of periviable infants, especially those in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42022376367, available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022376367.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 39807383 · DOI · PMC11726316

Mass Administration of Azithromycin to Infants in Mali to Reduce Mortality [2]

Randomized controlled trial Haidara FC, Adubra L, Abdou M, Alber D, Ashorn U, Cheung YB, et al. · · 2025 · cited 11 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundMass administration of azithromycin to children 1 to 59 months of age has been shown to reduce mortality among infants and children in this age group in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
Closing excerpt
).
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (357 words)

BackgroundMass administration of azithromycin to children 1 to 59 months of age has been shown to reduce mortality among infants and children in this age group in some areas of sub-Saharan Africa. The largest effects have appeared to be among infants younger than 12 months of age, within 3 months after treatment; this observation motivated the design of the current trial.MethodsIn this trial, we randomly assigned villages in Mali, West Africa, in a 3:4:2 ratio to receive distributions of placebo, azithromycin two times a year, or azithromycin four times a year. Infants 1 to 11 months of age received, in doses of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight, placebo every 3 months (control group); azithromycin at two quarterly visits from January through June and placebo at two quarterly visits from July through December (twice-yearly azithromycin group); or azithromycin every 3 months (quarterly azithromycin group). The primary outcome was death within 3 months after eligibility had been confirmed, analyzed in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsFrom December 2020 through December 2022, a total of 1151 villages were enrolled in the trial; 386 villages were randomly assigned to the control group, 511 to the twice-yearly azithromycin group, and 254 to the quarterly azithromycin group. Among all the villages, 149,090 infants received at least one dose of placebo or azithromycin, with a total of 82,600 person-years of follow-up; 968 deaths were recorded. Mortality was 11.9 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk in the control group, 11.8 deaths per 1000 person-years in the twice-yearly azithromycin group (incidence rate ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.19), and 11.3 deaths per 1000 person-years in the quarterly azithromycin group (incidence rate ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.15). Adverse events were rare, and the percentages of infants with adverse events were similar in the three groups. Mortality among untreated children 12 to 59 months of age was similar across groups.ConclusionsMass administration of azithromycin in Mali, limited to infants 1 to 11 months of age, did not result in lower infant or child mortality than placebo, regardless of whether azithromycin was delivered twice yearly or quarterly. (Funded by the Gates Foundation; LAKANA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04424511.).

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41092331 · DOI · PMC13537731

Timing of Antenatal Corticosteroid Administration and Neonatal Outcomes [3]

Research article Melamed N, Murphy KE, Pylypjuk C, Sherlock R, Ethier G, Yoon EW, et al. · · 2025 · cited 10 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ImportanceAntenatal corticosteroids (ACS) are accepted to be most effective in reducing prematurity-related neonatal mortality and morbidity when administered 1 to 7 days before birth.
Closing excerpt
These findings may have important clinical implications for the management of pregnancies at risk of preterm birth, particularly regarding the administration of ACS even in cases in which preterm birth is imminent, and the timing of repeat courses of ACS.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (435 words)

ImportanceAntenatal corticosteroids (ACS) are accepted to be most effective in reducing prematurity-related neonatal mortality and morbidity when administered 1 to 7 days before birth. However, precise data on the optimal timing of administration are scarce.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between ACS administration to birth interval as a continuous variable and neonatal outcomes among preterm neonates.Design, setting, and participantsThis national retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2018 to 2021 at level III neonatal intensive care units participating in the Canadian Neonatal Network. Participants included singleton and twin neonates born from 23 weeks 0 days' to 31 weeks 6 days' gestation. Data were analyzed from November 29, 2023, to March 8, 2024.ExposureACS administration to birth interval.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was neonatal mortality. The secondary outcome was a composite of mortality or severe neurologic injury. Associations of the ACS administration to birth interval with the study outcomes were modeled using restricted cubic splines with 5 knots.ResultsA total of 7950 neonates met the study criteria, from 7124 pregnancies (mean [SD] maternal age, 31.1 [5.7] years). Compared with individuals who received ACS, those who did not were younger and had lower rates of nulliparity, twin pregnancy, hypertension, and gestational diabetes. The overall rates of neonatal mortality and the composite outcome were 8% (670 of 7950) and 14% (1132 of 7950), respectively. ACS exposure was associated with reduced neonatal mortality as early as 2 hours after administration (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]). The reduction in mortality risk increased to a plateau 12 hours following exposure (ARR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.40-0.78]), remained stable for the first 2 weeks following exposure, and gradually decreased after that. The association with reduced mortality was no longer observed at 4 weeks after administration (ARR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.56-1.20]), and the ARR approached the null 5 weeks after administration (ARR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.56-1.73]). This pattern was not affected by gestational age at birth or the number of fetuses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort of neonates born from 23 weeks 0 days' gestation to 31 weeks 6 days' gestation, ACS administration was associated with a reduction in neonatal mortality as early as 2 hours after the administration of the first dose. The interval associated with the greatest reduction in neonatal mortality was between 12 hours and 14 days before birth, which was wider than the currently accepted optimal interval of 1 to 7 days. These findings may have important clinical implications for the management of pregnancies at risk of preterm birth, particularly regarding the administration of ACS even in cases in which preterm birth is imminent, and the timing of repeat courses of ACS.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40388165 · DOI · PMC12090034

Kenyan Neonatal Mortality Risk Predictor: Protocol for a User-Centered Design Evaluation [4]

Research article Nyatuka RD, Macharia P, Esther K, Siva F, Muriithi B, Rahman Jabin MS · · 2026 · cited 6 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundNeonatal mortality remains a major public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where health systems often lack effective triage mechanisms to identify and prioritize high-risk neonates.
Closing excerpt
2.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (404 words)

BackgroundNeonatal mortality remains a major public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where health systems often lack effective triage mechanisms to identify and prioritize high-risk neonates. Existing clinical tools frequently fail to support timely decision-making during the critical early postnatal period. A previous machine learning (ML)-based neonatal risk prediction model developed using multicountry LMIC datasets demonstrated high predictive accuracy for neonatal mortality in the Indian context, achieving an area under the curve above 0.80. The model incorporates 11 neonatal parameters assessed from delivery through day 2 of life, with birth weight identified as the strongest predictor.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the contextual feasibility, applicability, and usability of the neonatal risk predictor variables embedded in the ML model in Kenyan health care facilities to inform potential adoption aligned with national health priorities and global targets, including Sustainable Development Goal 3.2.MethodsA mixed methods feasibility study will be conducted through the real-world preimplementation of a neonatal risk assessment tool in 3 Kenyan health facilities that provide neonatal services. Qualitative and quantitative approaches will be combined to strengthen methodological rigor and enhance the credibility of the findings. The study will be implemented in 3 sequential phases. Phase 1 will involve key informant interviews to capture contextual insights on existing workflows, stakeholder perceptions, and implementation considerations. Phase 2 will comprise a 4-month intervention period during which a paper-based neonatal risk tool will be integrated into routine clinical workflows to assess feasibility, applicability, and usability. Phase 3 will involve postintervention surveys conducted longitudinally at 2 time points to evaluate outcomes, user experience, and implementation barriers.ResultsThe neonatal risk predictors are expected to demonstrate strong contextual feasibility, allowing for integration into existing triage systems with minimal workflow disruption. Their applicability is expected to enable early identification of high-risk neonates within the first 48 hours of life, thereby enabling timely clinical decision-making. Usability assessments are expected to indicate positive user experience, acceptability, and perceived usefulness among health care workers. Six participants (frontline neonatal health workers) had been recruited by the time of initial submission of the manuscript (August 2025). Data analysis is ongoing and is expected to be concluded in March 2026. Publication of study findings is expected by June 2026.ConclusionsThe study is expected to generate actionable evidence to support the translation of ML-based neonatal risk prediction into routine clinical practice in LMIC settings, thereby reducing neonatal mortality and advancing progress toward Sustainable Development Goal target 3.2.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41894529 · DOI · PMC13026422

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood [5]
    Saigal S, Doyle LW · Lancet · 2008 · cited 2,021 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? [6]
    Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Bahl R, Lawn JE, Salam RA, Paul VK, et al. · Lancet · 2014 · cited 1,021 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health: from slogan to service delivery [7]
    Kerber KJ, de Graft-Johnson JE, Bhutta ZA, Okong P, Starrs A, Lawn JE · Lancet · 2007 · cited 662 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Optimal breastfeeding practices and infant and child mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
    Sankar MJ, Sinha B, Chowdhury R, Bhandari N, Taneja S, Martines J, et al. · Acta Paediatr · 2015 · cited 513 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Countdown to 2015: a decade of tracking progress for maternal, newborn, and child survival [9]
    Victora CG, Requejo JH, Barros AJ, Berman P, Bhutta Z, Boerma T, et al. · Lancet · 2016 · cited 348 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article 3.6 million neonatal deaths--what is progressing and what is not? [10]
    Lawn JE, Kerber K, Enweronu-Laryea C, Cousens S · Semin Perinatol · 2010 · cited 313 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Li YX, Hu YL, Huang X, Li J, Li X, Shi ZY, et al.. Survival outcomes among periviable infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing different income countries and time periods. . 2024. PMID 39807383 · DOI · PMC11726316
  2. Haidara FC, Adubra L, Abdou M, Alber D, Ashorn U, Cheung YB, et al.. Mass Administration of Azithromycin to Infants in Mali to Reduce Mortality. . 2025. PMID 41092331 · DOI · PMC13537731
  3. Melamed N, Murphy KE, Pylypjuk C, Sherlock R, Ethier G, Yoon EW, et al.. Timing of Antenatal Corticosteroid Administration and Neonatal Outcomes. . 2025. PMID 40388165 · DOI · PMC12090034
  4. Nyatuka RD, Macharia P, Esther K, Siva F, Muriithi B, Rahman Jabin MS. Kenyan Neonatal Mortality Risk Predictor: Protocol for a User-Centered Design Evaluation. . 2026. PMID 41894529 · DOI · PMC13026422
  5. Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet. 2008. PMID 18207020 · DOI
  6. Bhutta ZA, Das JK, Bahl R, Lawn JE, Salam RA, Paul VK, et al.. Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost?. Lancet. 2014. PMID 24853604 · DOI
  7. Kerber KJ, de Graft-Johnson JE, Bhutta ZA, Okong P, Starrs A, Lawn JE. Continuum of care for maternal, newborn, and child health: from slogan to service delivery. Lancet. 2007. PMID 17933651 · DOI
  8. Sankar MJ, Sinha B, Chowdhury R, Bhandari N, Taneja S, Martines J, et al.. Optimal breastfeeding practices and infant and child mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatr. 2015. PMID 26249674 · DOI
  9. Victora CG, Requejo JH, Barros AJ, Berman P, Bhutta Z, Boerma T, et al.. Countdown to 2015: a decade of tracking progress for maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet. 2016. PMID 26477328 · DOI · PMC7613171
  10. Lawn JE, Kerber K, Enweronu-Laryea C, Cousens S. 3.6 million neonatal deaths--what is progressing and what is not?. Semin Perinatol. 2010. PMID 21094412 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Child MortalityClinical Research
  • Fetal MortalityClinical Research
  • Hospital MortalityClinical Research
  • Perinatal MortalityClinical Research
  • Pregnancy RateClinical Research
  • Birth RateClinical Research

All 98 articles in Clinical Research →

At a glance

33,349
PubMed records on this heading
10%
published since 2020
2,499
review articles
628
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Child MortalityClinical Research
  • Fetal MortalityClinical Research
  • Hospital MortalityClinical Research
  • Perinatal MortalityClinical Research
  • Pregnancy RateClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support