Scholarlink

Objective <p>This study compares the Finnegan Score and NASSCORES for assessing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), focusing on interrater reliability (IRR), accuracy, and provider preference.</p> Study design <p>This prospective study involved 75 neonatal providers who assessed two standardized videos of newborns with NAS using both the Finnegan score and NASSCORES. Participants scored each video with both tools and completed a Likert-based preference survey. Intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1) was used to measure IRR.</p> Result <p>NASSCORES showed a higher IRR compared with the Finnegan score and greater scoring accuracy for both videos. Most neonatal providers favored NASSCORES for faster computation, easier use, better treatment guidance, and overall satisfaction, with fewer concerns about its clinical utility.</p> Conclusion <p>NASSCORES outperformed Finnegan Score in this standardized video study, indicating its potential as a more practical scoring tool for NAS. Further validation in clinical settings is recommended.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A comparative study of two scoring systems for the assessment of neonatal abstinence syndrome

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月1日

查看全文
  • Rhythm Iqubal,
  • Prabhakar Kocherlakota,
  • Karen Hussein,
  • Luke Keating,
  • Edmund F LaGamma

摘要

Objective

This study compares the Finnegan Score and NASSCORES for assessing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), focusing on interrater reliability (IRR), accuracy, and provider preference.

Study design

This prospective study involved 75 neonatal providers who assessed two standardized videos of newborns with NAS using both the Finnegan score and NASSCORES. Participants scored each video with both tools and completed a Likert-based preference survey. Intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(2,1) was used to measure IRR.

Result

NASSCORES showed a higher IRR compared with the Finnegan score and greater scoring accuracy for both videos. Most neonatal providers favored NASSCORES for faster computation, easier use, better treatment guidance, and overall satisfaction, with fewer concerns about its clinical utility.

Conclusion

NASSCORES outperformed Finnegan Score in this standardized video study, indicating its potential as a more practical scoring tool for NAS. Further validation in clinical settings is recommended.