FIGURE 1 Global map showing location of respondents. Color shading indicates the number of respondents (“answers”) per a given country. More

FIGURE 2 Available diagnostic (A) and management (B) resources available to respondents relevant for the diagnosis of sepsis in children. The availability of resources are shown for low income countries (LIC) and low middle income countries (LMIC), upper middle income countries (UMIC), and high in... More

FIGURE 3 Ranked list of factors currently used by respondents to recognize children with sepsis (A) and with septic shock (B). Percentages represent combined strongly disagree and disagree, neutral, and combined agree and strongly agree. More

FIGURE 4 Perceptions of the utility of current sepsis definitions for quality benchmarking, correct disease classification, recognition, enrollment into research studies, understanding the epidemiology of sepsis, outcome prediction, and clinical recognition of active sepsis. The fourth bar indicat... More

FIGURE 5 Respondents’ views on whether various clinical scenarios related to infection in children should be termed sepsis. More

FIGURE 1 Key driver diagram showing global and SMART Aim, key drivers, and interventions. LOR, level of reliability; Vte, tidal volume. More

FIGURE 2 Alarm algorithm showing general guidelines for alarm parameters organized by type of ventilator. Text describes general principles to approach. RR, respiratory rate. More

FIGURE 3 Annotated p-chart showing rate of critical alarms set as patients depart from pulmonary clinic visit. Dates span from May 1, 2017 to January 25, 2021. (A) Baseline data through July 13, 2017 with mean of 63.8%. (B) Shift in mean to 80.8% after beginning observation, revising of clinic wor... More

FIGURE 1 Enrollment, cohort assignment, and developmental outcome assessment. More

FIGURE 2 Developmental trajectories. Cohort 1 included children with normal cognitive skills and normal adaptive behavior who underwent cochlear implantation. Cohort 2 included children with early developmental impairment who underwent cochlear implantation. Cohort 3 included children with early developmental impairment who did not receive a cochlear implant and continued to use appropriately fitted hearing aids. Each dot is the test result for 1 child, the blue lines are the linear fits, and the gray-shaded region is the 95% CI. The slopes and R² of the fit lines are shown in the upper left quadrant of each analysis. The P values come from the interaction term between age and either cohort 1 versus 2 (age:cohort 1–2 in Table 3 ) or cohort 2 versus 3 (age:cohort 2–3 in Table 3 ) in the hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Dev, developmental. More

FIGURE 1 Results of search strategy in PRISMA ²⁷ flowchart. ^aTwo studies reporting on single group. ^{33 , 34} NDT, neurodevelopmental therapy; RCT, randomized controlled trial. More

FIGURE 2 Meta-analyses showing pooled effect size of NDT versus comparator interventions on motor outcomes. Left-hand panel: (A) NDT versus control, (B) NDT versus activity-based approaches, outlier excluded, (C) NDT versus body function and structures-based approaches, (D) NDT higher dose versus NDT lower dose. ^aAnalysis based on post-test scores. ^bAnalysis based on change scores. Right-hand panel: Studies stratified by overall risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool. Risk of Bias Domains: (A) bias arising from the randomization process; (B) bias due to deviations from intended interventions; (C) bias due to missing outcome data; (D) bias in measurement of the outcome; (E) bias in selection of the reported result, and (F) overall risk of bias. ^cCriterion-referenced outcome measure. ^dNorm-referenced outcome measure AHA, Assisting Hand Assessment; BMS, Bayley Motor Development Scale CI, confidence interval; DDST, Denver Developmental Screening Test; DHI, Duruoz Hand Index; GMFM, Gross Motor Function Measure; IV, inverse variance; NDT, Neurodevelopmental Therapy; PEDI, Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; SD, standard deviation. More