Sickness severity scores are widely used for neonates admitted to neonatal intensive care units to predict severity of illness and risk of mortality and long-term outcome. These scores are also used frequently for quality assessment among various neonatal intensive care unit and hospital. Accurate and reliable measures of severity of illness are required for unbiased and reliable comparisons especially for benchmarking or comparative quality improvement care studies. These scores also serve to control for population differences when performing studies such as clinical trials, outcome evaluations, and evaluation of resource utilisation. Although presently there are multiple scores designed for neonates' sickness assessment but none of the score is ideal. Each score has its own advantages and disadvantages. We did literature search for identifying all neonatal sickness severity score and in this review article, we discuss these scores along with their merits and demerits.

Objective The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two different nasal high-flow rates for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates Study Design In this single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates ≥28 weeks of gestation with respiratory distress from birth were randomized to treatment with either increased nasal flow therapy (8–10 L/min) or standard nasal flow therapy (5–7 L/min). The primary outcome of nasal high-flow therapy failure was a composite outcome defined as the need for higher respiratory support (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy. Results A total of 212 neonates were enrolled. Nasal high-flow failure rate in the increased flow group was similar to the standard flow group (22 vs. 29%, relative risk = 0.81 [95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.15]). However, nasal flow rate escalation was significantly more common in the standard flow group (64 vs. 43%, p = 0.004). None of the infants in the increased flow group developed air leak syndromes. Conclusion Higher nasal flow rate (8–10 L/min) when compared with lower nasal flow rate of 5 to 7 L/min did not reduce the need for higher respiratory support (CPAP/mechanical ventilation) or surfactant therapy in moderately and late preterm neonates. However, initial flow rates of 5 L/min were not optimal for most preterm infants receiving primary nasal flow therapy. Key Points

No abstract