Abstract

The Apgar score, a rapid and standardized neonatal assessment tool, has been instrumental in evaluating newborn health immediately after birth since its inception in 1952. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the Apgar score, detailing its historical context, physiological underpinnings, and clinical utility in identifying newborns requiring immediate medical intervention. It critically examines the score’s inherent limitations, particularly its restricted predictive value for long-term neurological outcomes and the challenges posed by subjective components, notably skin color assessment in diverse populations. A significant portion of this review is dedicated to its application within African healthcare settings, highlighting the disproportionately high prevalence of low Apgar scores and birth asphyxia, influenced by socioeconomic factors and resource constraints. Recent clinical trials and research breakthroughs are discussed, emphasizing evolving interpretations and the ongoing quest for more objective and equitable newborn assessment methodologies. The paper concludes with actionable recommendations for clinical practice and policy, advocating for enhanced training, context-specific guidelines, improved maternal care, and continued research to optimize neonatal outcomes globally, with a specific focus on addressing disparities prevalent in African contexts.

1. Introduction

The transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life is a critical period for newborns, demanding rapid physiological adaptation. The ability to quickly assess a newborn’s condition at this pivotal moment is paramount for identifying distress and initiating life-saving interventions. Among the various tools developed for this purpose, the Apgar score stands as a globally recognized and enduring method.

1.1. Historical Context and Evolution of the Apgar Score

The Apgar score, devised by Dr. Virginia Apgar in 1952, represented a groundbreaking advancement in neonatal care. Its primary objective was to provide a rapid and systematic assessment of a newborn’s health immediately following birth, specifically to identify infants who might require prompt medical intervention, particularly to establish effective breathing.¹ This scoring system introduced a standardized approach to evaluating infants post-delivery, profoundly influencing neonatal care practices worldwide.²

The score’s introduction over 70 years ago marked a significant period of evolution in neonatal care.² Its inherent simplicity and cost-effectiveness facilitated its widespread and universal adoption across diverse healthcare settings globally.⁴ However, this broad application has inadvertently led to an expansion of its perceived utility beyond its original intent, often resulting in misinterpretations and inappropriate uses. For instance, the score is frequently, and incorrectly, used to predict long-term neurological prognosis.³ This divergence from its intended purpose underscores a critical need for ongoing education among healthcare professionals and the public to ensure adherence to current guidelines regarding its appropriate and limited utility.

1.2. Purpose and Importance in Neonatal Assessment

The Apgar score serves as an accepted and convenient method for reporting the immediate status of a newborn.³ It is a rapid assessment tool that assists healthcare providers in determining whether a newborn requires assistance with breathing or is experiencing cardiac difficulties.¹²

The assessment is typically performed twice: at 1 minute and again at 5 minutes after birth. The 1-minute score offers a snapshot of how well the baby tolerated the birthing process, while the 5-minute score provides an indication of the baby’s adaptation to life outside the womb.² Should the 5-minute score remain low (defined as ≤7), the assessment is typically repeated at 5-minute intervals for up to 20 minutes to monitor the infant’s progress and response to any interventions.³

It is crucial to recognize that the Apgar score provides a physiological snapshot at a specific point in time and is not intended to predict a child’s long-term health, behavior, intelligence, or neurological outcome.¹ Despite its consistent and widespread use, this fundamental limitation is often overlooked or misunderstood, contributing to unnecessary parental anxiety and potential misallocation of medical resources or misdiagnosis in legal contexts.³ The repeated emphasis on this distinction in medical literature highlights that, despite its utility, a clear understanding of the score’s true purpose remains a challenge.

1.3. Global Relevance and Prioritizing the African Context

The Apgar score’s universal recognition and application across the globe underscore its perceived value in neonatal assessment.⁸ It has become a standard practice in delivery rooms worldwide.² However, the reliability and consistent application of the score have been subject to scrutiny, with concerns raised regarding interobserver variations and discrepancies in reporting across different geographical regions.⁴

This report places a particular emphasis on the African context, acknowledging that neonatal mortality and morbidity, including the critical issue of birth asphyxia, are disproportionately high in sub-Saharan Africa.²⁸ This regional focus is imperative because African newborns face a dual challenge: they are at an elevated risk for conditions that can lead to low Apgar scores, and the assessment tool itself may be less accurate or prone to bias within this population. For instance, routine neonatal assessments, including the Apgar score, have historically been developed based on normative data from predominantly White populations, which can potentially disadvantage neonates with darker skin tones.⁹ This inherent bias within the scoring system, coupled with the higher prevalence of adverse birth outcomes, can lead to delayed or inappropriate interventions, thereby exacerbating existing health disparities. A critical examination of the Apgar score’s utility and adaptation in these specific settings is therefore essential for promoting equitable neonatal care.

2. Components of the Apgar Score: Physiological Basis and Clinical Assessment

The Apgar score systematically evaluates five critical physiological signs of a newborn: Appearance (skin color), Pulse (heart rate), Grimace (reflex irritability), Activity (muscle tone), and Respiration (breathing effort).² Each of these components is assigned a score of 0, 1, or 2, reflecting the observed condition of the infant.

2.1. Appearance (Skin Color): Physiology of Oxygenation and Challenges in Diverse Skin Tones

The assessment of skin color is a component of the Apgar score, with a score of 0 for pale blue or dusky skin, 1 for a pink body with blue extremities (acrocyanosis), and 2 for an entirely pink appearance.² Physiologically, skin color serves as an indicator of a newborn’s oxygenation and circulatory status.² Central cyanosis, characterized by a bluish discoloration of the tongue, lips, and trunk, is a critical sign of insufficient oxygenation.³² Conversely, peripheral cyanosis, where only the hands and feet appear blue, is a common and typically normal finding immediately after birth as the newborn’s circulation adapts to the external environment.⁶

Despite its inclusion, the “completely pink” criterion presents a significant challenge, particularly for neonates with non-white skin tones.⁷ Dr. Apgar herself acknowledged this limitation, noting that color was the “most unsatisfactory sign” in her original evaluation method.⁹ Studies have shown that white newborns are disproportionately more likely to receive a perfect Apgar score of 10, suggesting a potential racial bias in this component of the assessment.⁹ Visual assessment of cyanosis is inherently subjective and less accurate in darker skin tones; instead, the color of the tongue and lips are considered more reliable indicators of oxygenation status.⁷ This systemic racial bias in clinical assessment can lead to healthy infants of color being potentially over-intervened upon, such as unnecessary admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) ⁹, or, conversely, a delay in recognizing true physiological distress if color cues are misinterpreted. This highlights an urgent need for updated, culturally competent assessment guidelines that rely on more objective measures or alternative anatomical sites for all neonates, particularly within diverse populations like those found across Africa.

2.2. Pulse (Heart Rate): Cardiovascular Transition and Regulation at Birth

Heart rate is a crucial component of the Apgar score, with a score of 0 for an absent heartbeat, 1 for a heart rate less than 100 beats per minute (bpm), and 2 for a heart rate greater than 100 bpm.² It is widely considered the most important assessment within the Apgar scoring system.¹⁰

The physiological basis for this emphasis lies in the complex and rapid cardiovascular transition that occurs at birth. Fetal circulation, characterized by shunts (ductus venosus, foramen ovale, and ductus arteriosus) that bypass the lungs, undergoes dramatic changes as the newborn takes its first breath.³⁸ The lungs expand, pulmonary vascular resistance significantly decreases, and blood flow is redirected to the pulmonary circulation, leading to the closure of these fetal shunts.³⁸ Heart rate is recognized as the gold standard clinical indicator of a successful transition from intra- to extrauterine life.³⁷ Neonatal heart rate is primarily regulated by the autonomic nervous system.⁴⁰ Bradycardia (a heart rate below 100 bpm) is a critical sign of hemodynamic compromise, hypoperfusion, or hypoxemia, necessitating immediate intervention.¹⁰ Unlike the subjective nature of skin color assessment, heart rate provides a more objective and immediate measure of the newborn’s physiological adaptation. The rapid and profound cardiovascular changes at birth are directly reflected in the heart rate, making it the cornerstone of immediate Apgar-guided resuscitation efforts.

2.3. Grimace (Reflex Irritability): Neurological Basis of Neonatal Reflexes

The grimace component assesses the newborn’s reflex irritability, with a score of 0 for no reaction to stimulation, 1 for grimacing, and 2 for grimacing accompanied by a cough, sneeze, or vigorous cry.² Physiologically, these reflexes are involuntary motor responses originating in the brainstem, present at birth to facilitate survival.⁴¹ A robust reflex response suggests a healthy and well-functioning nervous system.² Conversely, a diminished or absent reflex response can be an early indicator of potential brain damage.²²

The grimace response, as a primitive reflex, is an involuntary action triggered by the brainstem.⁴¹ Its presence and vigor directly indicate the integrity of fundamental neurological pathways essential for survival, including those involved in airway protection (such as coughing or sneezing) and responses to noxious stimuli (like crying or withdrawal).¹⁴ A weak or absent grimace suggests central nervous system dysfunction ⁴¹, potentially pointing to brain injury.²² This component thus provides a rapid, non-invasive assessment of the newborn’s immediate neurological status, which is crucial for identifying acute distress and guiding prompt interventions.

2.4. Activity (Muscle Tone): Neuromuscular Control and Development

Muscle tone, or activity, is scored as 0 for loose and floppy limbs, 1 for some flexion of extremities, and 2 for active motion.² This component reflects the newborn’s neurological function and overall physical health.² Healthy newborns typically exhibit spontaneous movement and muscle contractions.²² Muscle tone develops progressively with gestational age, with increasing flexor tone observed as maturation advances.⁴⁴

Low muscle tone, or hypotonia, is characterized by decreased muscle tension and reduced resistance to passive movement.⁴⁶ Hypotonia can originate from central nervous system issues (e.g., brain or spinal cord injuries, such as hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy – HIE) or peripheral neuromuscular problems (e.g., nerve or muscle disorders).⁴⁴ The presence of hypotonia at birth, particularly when accompanied by a low Apgar score, may indicate HIE.⁴⁶ Furthermore, persistently low muscle tone can serve as an early sign of conditions like cerebral palsy.²² The Apgar score’s assessment of muscle tone provides immediate information about potential brain injury or underlying neurological conditions, guiding further diagnostic workup and early intervention.

2.5. Respiration (Breathing Effort): Pulmonary Adaptation and Respiratory Distress

The respiration component assesses the newborn’s breathing effort, with a score of 0 for absent breathing, 1 for slow, irregular, or gasping breaths, and 2 for a good, strong cry.² Effective respiratory effort is fundamental for adequate oxygenation and overall neonatal health.² At birth, the newborn’s lungs undergo rapid expansion, leading to a significant drop in pulmonary vascular resistance and promoting robust blood flow to the lungs.³⁸ A healthy newborn is expected to cry spontaneously and demonstrate strong respiratory effort.²² The normal breathing rate for a newborn ranges from 30 to 60 breaths per minute.²²

Signs of respiratory distress, such as absent, weak, irregular, or gasping breaths, or evidence of increased work of breathing (e.g., retractions), indicate a need for immediate intervention.² Common causes of low scores in this category include fluid in the baby’s airway or conditions like meconium aspiration syndrome.¹² The initiation and maintenance of effective respiration are arguably the most immediate and critical challenges for a newborn transitioning from the intrauterine environment to air-breathing.³⁸ The Apgar score’s emphasis on breathing effort and the vigor of the cry directly assesses the success of this pulmonary adaptation, making it paramount for identifying newborns in acute physiological distress and guiding immediate resuscitation.

Table 1: Apgar Score Criteria and Interpretation

Apgar Sign	Score 0	Score 1	Score 2
Appearance	Blue, pale all over	Body pink, extremities blue	Completely pink
Pulse	Absent	<100 beats per minute	>100 beats per minute
Grimace	No response	Grimace	Cough, sneeze, or vigorous cry
Activity	Limp, floppy	Some flexion of extremities	Active motion
Respiration	Absent	Slow, irregular, or gasping	Good, strong cry
Total Score	0-3: Critical, requires immediate intervention	4-6: Moderately abnormal, may need assistance	7-10: Normal, healthy newborn
Source: Adapted from MedlinePlus, KidsHealth, MSD Manuals, Quizlet, and other sources 2

3. Interpreting Apgar Scores: Clinical Significance and Immediate Interventions

The total Apgar score, ranging from 0 to 10, provides a rapid overview of a newborn’s physiological status immediately after birth.²

3.1. Scoring Ranges and What They Indicate

A score between 7 and 10 is considered normal and reassuring, indicating that the newborn is in good health and adapting well to extrauterine life.² A perfect score of 10 is quite rare, as most newborns typically lose one point for transient acrocyanosis (blue hands and feet) as their peripheral circulation adapts after birth.⁶

A score ranging from 4 to 6 is considered moderately abnormal or intermediate, suggesting that the baby may be experiencing some distress and could require resuscitative measures or other forms of assistance.² A score between 0 and 3 is considered low or critically low, indicating severe distress and necessitating immediate resuscitation and critical care interventions.²

The assessment at 1 and 5 minutes, and potentially up to 20 minutes for low scores, underscores that birth is a dynamic physiological transition rather than a static event.³ A low 1-minute score is a common occurrence and frequently improves to a near-normal range by 5 minutes.¹² This highlights the significant importance of observing the

trend in Apgar scores, particularly the change between the 1-minute and 5-minute assessments, as this provides a valuable index of the effectiveness of any interventions and the baby’s overall physiological adaptation.¹⁰ This dynamic interpretation is considered more informative than a single score in isolation, emphasizing the remarkable physiological resilience observed in most newborns.

3.2. Common Causes of Low Apgar Scores

Low Apgar scores are frequently attributed to a variety of factors related to the birthing process and the newborn’s immediate condition. These often include difficult births, cesarean sections, the presence of fluid in the baby’s airway, high-risk pregnancies, or premature birth.¹² Beyond these, other influencing factors can include maternal sedation or anesthesia administered during labor, pre-existing congenital malformations in the infant, the gestational age at birth, and any birth trauma experienced.⁵

The diverse range of factors contributing to a low Apgar score signifies that it is primarily a clinical finding reflecting a physiological state of distress, rather than a definitive diagnosis in itself.²⁰ This understanding underscores the necessity for comprehensive clinical evaluation beyond the Apgar score alone. Such an evaluation should encompass a detailed maternal history, a thorough review of any labor and delivery complications, and additional neonatal assessments. This holistic approach is crucial for determining the precise underlying cause of the low score and for guiding appropriate, targeted interventions to address the newborn’s specific needs.

3.3. Immediate Medical Attention and Resuscitation Protocols

When a newborn’s Apgar score falls below 7, it serves as a clear indication that the baby requires medical attention.¹² Immediate interventions may include administering supplemental oxygen, clearing any obstructions from the baby’s airway, or providing physical stimulation to help improve the heart rate.¹²

A critical aspect of neonatal care is that resuscitation efforts must be initiated before the 1-minute Apgar score is formally assigned.³ This highlights a crucial nuance: the Apgar score is not intended as a real-time decision-making tool for

initiating resuscitation. Instead, its primary function is to assess the newborn’s overall status and, importantly, their response to resuscitation efforts.³ This distinction is vital for clinical practice, emphasizing that immediate action based on observable clinical signs takes precedence over waiting for a numerical score. The score then becomes a valuable communication tool among healthcare providers and a performance indicator for the effectiveness of the interventions provided. In rare cases where an Apgar score remains 0 beyond 10 minutes, this information may be considered when determining whether to continue resuscitative efforts, though current expert consensus no longer recommends automatic termination of efforts at this specific time point.⁵

4. Predictive Value and Limitations of the Apgar Score

While the Apgar score is invaluable for immediate neonatal assessment, its utility in predicting long-term outcomes is subject to significant limitations.

4.1. Correlation with Neonatal Mortality and Morbidity

Population-based studies consistently demonstrate a correlation between a low 5-minute Apgar score, particularly scores of 0-3, and an increased risk of neonatal mortality.³ Furthermore, a low 5-minute Apgar score is associated with an elevated risk of cerebral palsy (reported to be 20 to 100 times higher), epilepsy, and other neurological disabilities in population studies, especially if the scores remain low at both 5 and 10 minutes.³ Low Apgar scores have also been linked to markers of brain damage, such as hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) and acidemia.¹³

Despite these correlations, it is crucial to understand the distinction between population-level risk and individual prognosis. While numerous studies show a statistical association between low Apgar scores and increased risks of adverse outcomes, the absolute risks for individual infants remain low.¹³ This means that the vast majority of infants who receive low Apgar scores do not go on to develop long-term disabilities.³ This distinction is paramount for counseling parents, avoiding undue anxiety, and ensuring that the score is not misinterpreted in clinical or legal contexts. The Apgar score serves as a valuable epidemiological tool for identifying at-risk

populations but is a poor clinical predictor for the long-term outcomes of any single infant.³

4.2. Limitations in Predicting Long-Term Neurological Outcomes

The Apgar score alone is not designed to predict, and indeed does not reliably predict, individual neonatal mortality or long-term neurological outcomes.³ Its predictive value is significantly limited by the low absolute risks associated with most neurological conditions (typically less than 5%).¹³ Furthermore, the majority of children who are eventually diagnosed with a clinical disability do not have a history of a low Apgar score at birth.¹³ The score also exhibits an imperfect correlation with conditions such as HIE, which themselves do not perfectly correlate with subsequent neurological morbidity, further diluting the observed associations.¹³

A particularly important limitation, especially relevant in global health contexts with high preterm birth rates, involves the confounding influence of physiological immaturity in preterm infants. In these vulnerable newborns, low Apgar scores may simply reflect their physiological immaturity rather than actual acute compromise or asphyxia.⁵ For example, a preterm infant might receive a low score due to underdeveloped reflexes or respiratory effort, not because of a severe intrapartum event. This decoupling of the score from true distress weakens its predictive value for long-term outcomes in this population ³, necessitating a more nuanced interpretation and reliance on other comprehensive clinical indicators for preterm babies.

4.3. Subjectivity and Interobserver Variability in Scoring

A significant limitation of the Apgar score stems from the inherent subjectivity of several of its components, particularly skin color, muscle tone, and reflex irritability.⁵ This subjectivity contributes to considerable interobserver variability in scoring, with studies reporting consistency rates between healthcare providers ranging from 55% to 82%.⁶ Such variability can lead to inconsistencies and potential misinterpretations of a newborn’s condition.⁴

This human element in assessment introduces “diagnostic noise” into what is intended to be a standardized evaluation. The consequence is that two equally competent healthcare providers might assign different scores to the same infant, potentially impacting immediate care decisions or the integrity of retrospective data analysis. This limitation is particularly pronounced in settings where standardized training may be less consistent or where high patient loads can affect meticulous observation. This underscores the continuous need for rigorous training, clear guidelines, and the integration of objective adjuncts, such as pulse oximetry for heart rate and oxygen saturation ³⁷, to minimize bias and improve the consistency and accuracy of Apgar scoring.

4.4. Influence of Gestational Age and Maternal Factors

A newborn’s Apgar score can be significantly influenced by factors related to both the infant’s physiological maturity and the maternal intrapartum experience. Scores are known to depend on the newborn’s physiological maturity and birthweight.²⁰ Various maternal factors can also contribute to lower scores, including the administration of maternal sedation or anesthesia during labor, a high-risk pregnancy, or a complicated labor and delivery.⁵ Furthermore, advanced maternal age, specifically mothers aged 40-44 years, has been associated with an increased risk for low Apgar scores.⁵⁵

The influence of these maternal factors and gestational age on Apgar scores highlights the profound interconnectedness of maternal and neonatal health. A low Apgar score is not solely a reflection of the newborn’s intrinsic condition but can also be a direct consequence of the intrapartum environment or the mother’s physiological state. This implies that efforts to improve maternal care, including the provision of comprehensive antenatal care and the promotion of safe delivery practices, can indirectly lead to better Apgar scores and, consequently, improved neonatal outcomes.²⁶ This is particularly relevant in regions where access to and quality of these essential services are often suboptimal.

5. Apgar Scores in the African Context: Prevalence, Challenges, and Adaptations

The Apgar score’s utility and interpretation take on particular significance within the African context, where unique epidemiological patterns and healthcare challenges influence neonatal outcomes.

5.1. Epidemiology of Low Apgar Scores and Birth Asphyxia in Sub-Saharan Africa

Birth asphyxia is a critical public health concern and a leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity across sub-Saharan Africa.²⁶ Globally, it accounts for a substantial proportion of neonatal deaths, with over 75% of these tragic occurrences concentrated in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.²⁸

The prevalence of low Apgar scores in African countries varies, reflecting diverse local conditions and reporting practices. Studies have reported ranges from 8% to 38% for low Apgar scores in West Africa ⁵², and a prevalence of 11.1% for perinatal asphyxia in a Nigerian study.²⁸ A recent study conducted in Ethiopia found a high prevalence of low 5th-minute Apgar scores, reaching 27.4% among mothers who underwent emergency cesarean sections.²⁶ Low Apgar scores are also significantly associated with low birth weight and preterm birth, both of which are highly prevalent issues in many African contexts.²⁶

The disproportionately high burden of low Apgar scores and birth asphyxia in sub-Saharan Africa is not merely a clinical observation but reflects deeper socioeconomic and systemic issues. Factors such as low socioeconomic class, unbooked pregnancies (lack of antenatal registration), and reliance on sub-optimal antenatal care settings are significantly associated with lower Apgar scores.³⁷ This indicates that effectively addressing the burden of low Apgar scores and associated morbidities in Africa requires interventions that extend beyond the immediate delivery room, encompassing efforts to improve access to quality antenatal care, alleviate poverty, and enhance health literacy across communities.²⁹

Table 2: Prevalence of Low Apgar Scores and Birth Asphyxia in Select African Regions

Region/Country	Study/Source	Prevalence of Low Apgar Score/Birth Asphyxia	Key Associated Factors
Ethiopia	26	27.4% (5th min Apgar <7) in emergency C-sections	Fetal heart rate abnormalities, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, prolonged labor, low birth weight
West Africa	52	8-38% low Apgar scores	Gestational age, fetal presentation, cord prolapse, cord around the neck, lack of cardiotocography assessment
Nigeria	28	11.1% perinatal asphyxia	Unspecified in snippet, but generally linked to intrapartum conditions, preterm birth, and low birth weight in SSA
Namibia	52	5.2% (2018) to 5.4% (2019) low Apgar scores	Gestational age, birth weight, fetal presentation, cord around the neck, lack of cardiotocography assessment
Source: Compiled from various studies focusing on African regions 26

5.2. Challenges in Apgar Score Implementation in Resource-Limited Settings

The implementation of the Apgar score in resource-limited settings, particularly across Africa, faces several significant challenges that can compromise its accuracy and effectiveness. The subjective nature of the Apgar score means it can either overestimate or underestimate the degree of asphyxia present.⁵⁸ As previously discussed, the “Appearance” component is particularly problematic for neonates with darker skin tones, potentially disadvantaging Black and Asian neonates due to inherent biases in the “pink all over” criterion.⁹

Healthcare provider factors also play a substantial role in ineffective Apgar score use. Studies in Kenya, for instance, have associated incorrect Apgar scoring with instrumental delivery, a lack of access to Apgar scoring charts, and the process of neonatal resuscitation itself.⁵⁸ A common practice where the person conducting the delivery also assigns the Apgar score can introduce ascertainment bias, as the provider may have a vested interest in the neonatal outcome or experience divided attention due to ongoing maternal management.⁵⁸ Furthermore, conventional Apgar scores do not adequately account for neonatal resuscitation, leading to potential inaccuracies when applied to resuscitated newborns.⁵⁹ Beyond these human and systemic factors, fundamental resource constraints, such as the lack of access to arterial blood gas analysis, limit the ability to obtain more objective physiological data that could complement or validate Apgar scores.²⁶

This complex interplay of human factors, systemic deficiencies, and inherent limitations of the Apgar tool itself creates a cycle where inaccurate scoring can lead to suboptimal care, ultimately contributing to poorer neonatal outcomes. This situation persists despite the widespread use of the Apgar score, highlighting the critical need for targeted interventions focused on comprehensive training, the provision of standardized protocols and essential tools, and addressing the underlying biases within the assessment.

Table 3: Healthcare Provider Factors Influencing Apgar Scoring in Resource-Limited Settings

Factor	Impact on Scoring/Accuracy	Source/Study
Instrumental Delivery	8.83 times higher odds of incorrect asphyxia classification	58
Lack of access to Apgar scoring charts	56.0 times more likely to incorrectly classify asphyxia	58
Neonatal Resuscitation	23.83 times more likely to be assigned incorrect scores (conventional Apgar does not account for resuscitation)	58
Ascertainment bias (deliverer scores)	Potential for incorrectly high scores, true asphyxia reported as no asphyxia (low sensitivity)	58
Subjectivity of components (e.g., color)	Leads to over/underestimation of asphyxia; particularly problematic for darker skin tones	9
Source: Compiled from studies on Apgar score implementation challenges in resource-limited settings 9

5.3. Maternal and Neonatal Factors Influencing Apgar Scores in African Populations

A range of maternal and neonatal factors significantly influence Apgar scores in African populations, many of which are amenable to intervention. Maternal factors associated with low Apgar scores include low socioeconomic class, unbooked pregnancies (lack of formal antenatal care registration), and receiving antenatal care predominantly at maternity centers or mission homes, which may offer less comprehensive services compared to larger hospitals.³⁷ Additionally, maternal age, particularly mothers under 16 or over 40 years, and inadequate prenatal care are also linked to a higher incidence of low scores.²³

Neonatal factors that frequently lead to immediate low Apgar scores include gestational age (especially prematurity), abnormal fetal presentation, cord prolapse, and the presence of a cord around the neck.⁵² Furthermore, fetal heart rate abnormalities, such as bradycardia or tachycardia, and meconium-stained amniotic fluid are significant predictors of low 5th-minute Apgar scores.²⁶ The identified maternal and neonatal factors influencing Apgar scores are largely preventable or manageable with improved antenatal and intrapartum care. The prevalence of issues like unbooked pregnancies, suboptimal antenatal care, and complications such as fetal heart rate abnormalities or meconium staining underscores the critical need for robust maternal health services. This implies that strategic investments in accessible, high-quality antenatal care, the presence of skilled birth attendants, and timely obstetric interventions (e.g., electronic fetal monitoring, appropriate use of partographs, and timely cesarean sections) can directly mitigate the risk of low Apgar scores and substantially improve neonatal outcomes in these settings.²⁶

5.4. Regional Guidelines and Protocols (e.g., Kenya, Ethiopia, Eswatini)

Across Africa, various countries and regional bodies are developing and implementing guidelines to address neonatal health, often incorporating the Apgar score within their protocols. In Ethiopia, studies emphasize the importance of identifying specific factors associated with low 5th-minute Apgar scores to inform strategies aimed at reducing neonatal mortality and morbidity.²⁶ Kenyan studies, particularly from tertiary centers like Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH), highlight the need to adopt a “gold standard” for birth asphyxia diagnosis, such as umbilical cord blood pH combined with neurological involvement, and to improve Apgar scoring through enhanced chart availability and continuous medical education for healthcare providers.²⁷ Hospitals in Nairobi also utilize Apgar timers for standardized assessment during deliveries.⁶³ In Eswatini, neonatal resuscitation guidelines emphasize immediate action based on clinical signs, explicitly stating that the Apgar score is for retrospective evaluation of resuscitation effectiveness, not for its initiation.³⁶ The East African Community (EAC) has further demonstrated a commitment to regional neonatal health through the launch of its Reproductive Maternal Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) Scorecard, aiming to track progress and advocate for health policy and system reforms.⁶¹

While international guidelines, such as those from the Neonatal Resuscitation Program ³, provide a foundational framework, regional guidelines and local research in Africa reveal significant implementation challenges, particularly in resource-limited settings. The call to adopt umbilical cord blood pH as a “gold standard” for asphyxia diagnosis in Kenya ²⁷ acknowledges the Apgar’s limitations, yet the practical feasibility of implementing such advanced diagnostics across all African facilities remains a substantial barrier. This situation necessitates the development of context-specific, adaptable guidelines that judiciously balance ideal clinical practice with the practical realities of available resources, while continuously striving for improvement through targeted training and the provision of essential equipment.

6. Latest Clinical Trials, Studies, and Research Breakthroughs (2020-2025)

Recent years have seen continued research into the Apgar score, its predictive capabilities, and efforts to refine neonatal assessment.

6.1. Recent Findings on Apgar Score and Neonatal Outcomes

A 2025 study protocol outlines efforts to develop a modern newborn assessment score, building upon Dr. Apgar’s legacy by identifying key observable elements and data that best differentiate normal from abnormal newborn transitions.²⁵ A 2024 study investigating congenital heart defects (CHDs) revealed that nearly all CHD subtypes were associated with an increased risk of low Apgar scores, particularly severe and cyanotic forms, suggesting a more complicated fetal-to-neonatal transition in these infants.³²

An Australian population-based study from 2024 further demonstrated that a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 4 was prognostic of neonatal mortality, severe neurological morbidity, and severe non-neurological morbidity in term infants, with the highest risk observed in the early term cohort. This study also highlighted a clear dose-response association between the Apgar score and these adverse outcomes.⁵⁰ Conversely, a 2024 study examining the contribution of low Apgar scores to identifying neonates with short-term morbidities found that while low Apgar scores are indeed associated with many short-term outcomes, their incremental contribution to identifying at-risk newborns, when other clinical factors are already considered, was not clinically significant.⁸ This suggests that while Apgar is a useful broad screening tool, it lacks the specificity to pinpoint exact risks or diagnoses in isolation.

In the African context, a 2025 Ethiopian study reported a high prevalence of low 5th-minute Apgar scores (27.4%) among newborns delivered via emergency cesarean section. Predictors identified in this study included fetal heart rate abnormalities, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, prolonged labor, and low birth weight.²⁶ The persistent validation of the Apgar score’s association with neonatal mortality and various morbidities in recent research, even as its limitations for individual prediction are reiterated, reinforces its ongoing utility as an initial alert system rather than a definitive diagnostic test. This continuous research emphasizes the need for comprehensive follow-up assessments when a low Apgar score is recorded.

6.2. Evolving Interpretations and Future Directions for Newborn Assessment

The ongoing discussion regarding the Apgar score’s usefulness, reliability, and inherent limitations continues to shape its interpretation and drive future directions in newborn assessment.⁴ Recognizing its shortcomings, organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) now advocate for the use of an expanded Apgar score reporting form. This expanded form aims to account for concurrent resuscitative interventions, providing a more complete picture of the newborn’s condition and response to care.³

The consistent acknowledgment of the Apgar score’s subjectivity and limitations, particularly in predicting long-term outcomes and its potential for bias, is a significant catalyst for research into more objective and comprehensive assessment methods.³ The development of expanded Apgar forms and the exploration of innovative approaches, such as video-based assessments and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to identify key observable elements during the first minutes of life ²⁵, signify a critical shift in the field. This evolution reflects a growing understanding that while the Apgar score was revolutionary for its time, modern neonatal care requires assessment tools that are less prone to human variability and more accurately reflect complex physiological states, especially when applied across diverse global populations.

6.3. Addressing Racial Bias in Apgar Scoring Methodologies

A critical area of recent research and discussion centers on the inherent racial bias within the Apgar scoring methodology, particularly concerning the “Appearance” (skin color) component. Concerns have been widely raised that this component, originally based on observations of normative White populations, may disadvantage neonates with darker skin tones.⁹ Studies have indeed shown that white newborns have a significantly higher chance of receiving a perfect Apgar score, highlighting a systemic issue within the assessment.⁹

This discussion has led some experts to recommend abandoning the color component entirely or to advocate for the use of alternative, more universally applicable indicators, such as the color of the lips, tongue, and gums, which may provide more accurate assessments of oxygenation regardless of skin pigmentation.⁷ Furthermore, there is a growing emphasis on the importance of training healthcare professionals to recognize and address implicit bias in their clinical assessment of babies from diverse ethnic backgrounds.³³ The ongoing discourse around racial bias in the “Appearance” component elevates the Apgar score from a mere clinical assessment to an issue of health equity. The fact that a tool developed in the 1950s may inadvertently perpetuate systemic bias underscores the urgent need for critical re-evaluation and adaptation of long-standing medical practices. This is particularly pertinent for the African audience, where misassessment due to skin tone could directly contribute to disparities in care and outcomes. The ongoing research and calls for changes reflect a growing awareness and commitment to decolonizing global health practices and ensuring equitable care for all newborns, regardless of their ethnicity.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1. Summary of Key Insights

The Apgar score remains an indispensable, rapid assessment tool for evaluating a newborn’s immediate physiological status and their response to resuscitation efforts. However, its utility is distinctly limited in predicting long-term neurological outcomes for individual infants. This limitation is compounded by inherent subjectivity, interobserver variability, and a significant racial bias embedded within the “Appearance” component, which disproportionately affects neonates with darker skin tones. In African settings, low Apgar scores are highly prevalent, often reflecting underlying socioeconomic factors and systemic challenges in healthcare infrastructure and provider training. Recent research continues to validate the Apgar’s role as a valuable population-level risk indicator, while simultaneously driving the development of more objective and comprehensive neonatal assessment methodologies to overcome its recognized shortcomings.

7.2. Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Policy in African Settings

To optimize neonatal outcomes, particularly in African contexts, the following recommendations are put forth for clinical practice and policy:

• Enhanced Training and Standardization: Implement continuous medical education programs focused on Apgar scoring and neonatal resuscitation. These programs must emphasize objective assessment criteria and actively address implicit bias, especially concerning the “Appearance” component.³³ Ensuring the widespread availability of readily accessible Apgar scoring charts is also crucial for promoting consistent practice.⁵⁸
• Context-Specific Guidelines: Develop and disseminate national and regional guidelines that are tailored to local resource availability while striving for the highest possible standard of care. These guidelines should explicitly delineate the appropriate use of the Apgar score for immediate assessment and evaluating resuscitation response, clearly distinguishing it from its limitations in predicting long-term prognosis.³
• Strengthening Maternal Care: Prioritize strategic investments in comprehensive antenatal care services, ensuring the presence of skilled birth attendants, and facilitating timely access to essential obstetric interventions (e.g., electronic fetal monitoring, appropriate use of partographs, and timely cesarean sections). These upstream interventions are critical for addressing the root causes that contribute to low Apgar scores.²⁶
• Integration of Objective Measures: Where feasible, integrate objective measures into routine neonatal assessment, such as pulse oximetry for accurate heart rate and oxygen saturation readings. Furthermore, explore the feasibility and scalability of implementing umbilical cord blood gas analysis in tertiary centers as a “gold standard” for the diagnosis of birth asphyxia, complementing the Apgar score.⁶
• Policy Reform: Advocate for broad health policy reforms that address the social determinants of health, including gender inequality and access to education. These systemic factors profoundly, albeit indirectly, impact maternal and neonatal outcomes and require concerted policy action.³¹

7.3. Future Research Directions

Continued research is essential to further refine neonatal assessment and improve outcomes globally:

• Validation of Modified Apgar Scores: Conduct rigorous studies to validate modified Apgar scoring systems that either eliminate or adapt the color component to ensure equitable assessment across diverse skin tones.⁷
• Development of New Assessment Tools: Support research and development efforts for novel, objective, and culturally appropriate newborn assessment tools. This includes leveraging emerging technologies such as video analysis and artificial intelligence, with a focus on their effective implementation in resource-limited settings.²⁵
• Longitudinal Studies in African Populations: Initiate and support more robust, multi-center longitudinal studies within African populations. These studies are crucial for gaining a deeper understanding of the long-term correlation between Apgar scores, specific interventions, and neurodevelopmental outcomes, while accounting for unique local confounding factors.⁸
• Implementation Science Research: Conduct research specifically focused on implementation science to identify and evaluate effective strategies for scaling up training programs, improving access to essential equipment, and ensuring consistent adherence to established neonatal resuscitation guidelines across diverse African healthcare settings.

Works cited

1. Apgar score | PPT – SlideShare, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/apgar-score-250944680/250944680
2. Understanding the APGAR Score Components Study Guide | Quizlet, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://quizlet.com/study-guides/understanding-the-apgar-score-components-4dd01f86-be59-4710-a376-b4b4754c0275
3. The Apgar Score | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/117/4/1444/70944/The-Apgar-Score
4. (PDF) Relevance and Applicability of the Apgar Score in Current Clinical Practice, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343167712_Relevance_and_Applicability_of_the_Apgar_Score_in_Current_Clinical_Practice
5. The Apgar Score | Pediatrics – AAP Publications, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/136/4/819/73821/The-Apgar-Score
6. Apgar score – Wikipedia, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score
7. Apgar Score: Chart, Definition, Normal, Baby, and More – Healthline, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.healthline.com/health/apgar-score
8. The contribution of low Apgar scores in identifying neonates with …, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11161404/
9. It’s time to remove skin color from the Apgar Score for newborns | Northwell Health, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.northwell.edu/news/insights/skin-color-apgar-score-newborns?app-version=true
10. APGAR Score – StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470569/
11. What is the APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, Respiration) score?, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.droracle.ai/articles/53257/what-is-the-apgar-appearance-pulse-grimace-activity-respiration-score
12. Apgar scores: What do they mean? – MedicalNewsToday, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/apgar-scores
13. Association of Apgar scores with death and neurologic disability – PMC, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2943160/
14. Apgar score: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003402.htm
15. Apgar Scores – HealthyChildren.org, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/delivery-beyond/Pages/Apgar-Scores.aspx
16. What Is the Apgar Score? Apgar Testing Explained – Cleveland Clinic, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/23094-apgar-score
17. What Is the Apgar Score? | Nemours KidsHealth, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/apgar0.html
18. APGAR Score Essentials – Number Analytics, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/apgar-score-essentials-newborn-health-assessment
19. APGAR Scoring, Vitals, New Ballard Scale, Thermoregulation – LevelUpRN, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://leveluprn.com/blogs/maternity-nursing/newborn-1-apgar-scoring-vital-signs-new-ballard-scale-thermoregulation-height-weight
20. Neonatal Resuscitation – Pediatrics – MSD Manual Professional Edition, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/pediatrics/perinatal-problems/neonatal-resuscitation
21. What Is the Apgar Score? – Brown & Crouppen, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.brownandcrouppen.com/blog/what-is-the-apgar-score/
22. Understanding Newborn APGAR Score Meanings – Cerebral Palsy Guide, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.cerebralpalsyguide.com/blog/apgar-score-meaning/
23. Apgar score | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/consumer-health/apgar-score
24. Systematic review of Apgar scores & cyanosis in Black, Asian, and ethnic minority infants, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12055595/
25. Assessing newborn scoring with each resuscitation (ANSWER): Protocol for identifying and testing an Apgar score for the 21st century – PubMed, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40373048/
26. Prevalence and factors associated with low 5th minute APGAR score among mothers who birth through emergency cesarean section: prospective cross-sectional study in Ethiopia – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11934554/
27. A comparative analysis of APGAR score and the gold standard in the diagnosis of birth asphyxia at a tertiary health facility in Kenya, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10208496/
28. (PDF) Prevalence, Risk Factors and Outcome of Perinatal Asphyxia in Newborns at Benue State University Teaching Hospital Makurdi – ResearchGate, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352792905_Prevalence_Risk_Factors_and_Outcome_of_Perinatal_Asphyxia_in_Newborns_at_Benue_State_University_Teaching_Hospital_Makurdi
29. Population-based rates, risk factors and consequences of preterm births in South-Asia and sub-Saharan Africa: A multi-country prospective cohort study — JOGH – Journal Of Global Health, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://jogh.org/population-based-rates-risk-factors-and-consequences-of-preterm-births-in-south-asia-and-sub-saharan-africa-a-multi-country-prospective-cohort-study/
30. When Markets Fail Newborns: The Case for an Advance Market Commitment for Neonatal Sepsis Diagnostics | Center For Global Development, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.cgdev.org/blog/when-markets-fail-newborns-case-advance-market-commitment-neonatal-sepsis-diagnostics
31. Global Disparities in Newborn Health Outcomes – gfcni.org, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.gfcni.org/maternal-newborn-health/newborn-health/global-disparities-in-newborn-health-outcomes
32. Do we assess ‘colour’ appropriately using the Apgar score …, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244827529_Do_we_assess_’colour’_appropriately_using_the_Apgar_score
33. Review of neonatal assessment and practice in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic newborns – NHS – Race and Health Observatory, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RHO-Neonatal_Executive-Summary.pdf
34. Assessments for Newborn Babies | Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.chop.edu/pages/assessments-newborn-babies
35. Neonatal Resuscitation – Pediatrics – Merck Manual Professional Edition, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/pediatrics/perinatal-problems/neonatal-resuscitation
36. NEONATAL CARE CLINICAL GUIDELINES – Unicef, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.unicef.org/eswatini/media/631/file/UNICEF-Sd-Neonatal-Guidelines-report-2018.pdf
37. Significance of Neonatal Heart Rate in the Delivery Room—A Review, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/10/9/1551
38. Normal Heart Transition After Birth – The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia – YouTube, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NLwfRed0wU&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
39. Cardiovascular Changes at Birth – Number Analytics, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/cardiovascular-changes-at-birth
40. Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) – Johns Hopkins Medicine, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/postural-orthostatic-tachycardia-syndrome-pots
41. Primitive Reflexes – StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554606/
42. Primitive Reflexes – Physiopedia, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.physio-pedia.com/Primitive_Reflexes
43. Reflexes in Infants: Understanding Your Baby’s 6 Amazing Early Movements – Roswell, Alpharetta, Milton | Omega Pediatrics, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.omegapediatrics.com/infant-reflexes-your-babys-early-movements/
44. The Floppy Infant – Neonatology – University of Florida, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://neonatology.pediatrics.med.ufl.edu/wordpress/files/2024/11/Neonatal-Neuromuscular.pdf
45. Neonatal Muscle Tone – Ballard Score, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.ballardscore.com/CatalogView/Article/monograph/neonatal-muscle-tone
46. Hypotonia – Physiopedia, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.physio-pedia.com/Hypotonia
47. Congenital Heart Defects and Apgar Score at Birth, a Nationwide Study, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.038798?doi=10.1161/JAHA.124.038798
48. Apgar score and neonatal mortality in a hospital located in the southern area of São Paulo City, Brazil – ResearchGate, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232223937_Apgar_score_and_neonatal_mortality_in_a_hospital_located_in_the_southern_area_of_Sao_Paulo_City_Brazil
49. BASIC NEWBORN RESUSCITATION – World Health Organization (WHO), accessed on July 1, 2025, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/75157/9789241503693_eng.pdf
50. Five-minute Apgar score and risk of neonatal mortality, severe …, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10825608/
51. The Apgar score: evolution, limitations, and scoring guidelines – PubMed, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1718292/
52. Neonatal factors associated with immediate low Apgar score in …, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10862593/
53. Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Preterm and Early Term Births: A Population-Based Register Study – MDPI, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5865
54. Apgar scores in neonates predict risk of cerebral palsy and epilepsy | Karolinska Institutet, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://news.ki.se/apgar-scores-in-neonates-predict-risk-of-cerebral-palsy-and-epilepsy
55. Neonatal Outcomes Among Infants of Mothers With Advanced Maternal Age: A National Cohort Study – PubMed, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40545746/
56. Optimizing maternal care for better neonatal outcomes in … – VeriXiv, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://verixiv.org/articles/2-74/v1/pdf?article_uuid=8ae711ed-ac87-444b-aa1c-45f68996232b
57. Maternal sociodemographic factors associated with low Apgar scores: A hospital based cross-sectional study | JOURNAL OF AFRICAN NEONATOLOGY, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://janeonatology.org/index.php/jan/article/view/153
58. A comparative analysis of APGAR score and the gold standard in the diagnosis of birth asphyxia at a tertiary health facility in Kenya – PLOS, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285828
59. (PDF) A comparative analysis of APGAR score and the gold …, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371010368_A_comparative_analysis_of_APGAR_score_and_the_gold_standard_in_the_diagnosis_of_birth_asphyxia_at_a_tertiary_health_facility_in_Kenya
60. Hypothermia amongst neonatal admissions in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study assessing prevalence, trends, associated factors, and its relationship with all-cause neonatal mortality – PubMed Central, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11004247/
61. EAC launches maternal, infant health strategy – World – ReliefWeb, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/eac-launches-maternal-infant-health-strategy
62. East Africa Community Launches Regional Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Scorecard, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.mhtf.org/2015/04/28/east-africa-community-launches-regional-reproductive-maternal-newborn-and-child-health-scorecard/
63. Comprehensive Newborn Care Protocols – Department of …, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://paediatrics.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/paediatrics.uonbi.ac.ke/files/2023-04/Comprehensive%20Newborn%20Care%20Protocols%20Book%20November%202022.pdf
64. Review of neonatal assessment and practice in Black, Asian, and minority ethnic newborns – NHS – Race and Health Observatory, accessed on July 1, 2025, https://www.nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RHO-Neonatal-Assessment-Report.pdf