SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Randomized controlled trials of antibiotics for neonatal infections: a systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Meropenem vs standard of care for treatment of neonatal late onset sepsis (NeoMero1): A randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Clinical trials of medicines in neonates: the influence of ethical and practical issues on design and conduct.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Review
- Paediatric clinical pharmacology in the UK.Archives of disease in childhood · 2014Review
- Antimicrobial treatment of serious gram-negative infections in newborns.Current infectious disease reports · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedvan Anker, John [corrected to van den Anker, John]
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAntibiotics are a key resource for the management of infectious diseases in neonatology and their evaluation is particularly challenging. We reviewed medical literature to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials on antibiotics in neonatal infections.
methodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from January 1995 to March 2010. Bibliographies of relevant articles were also hand-searched. We included all randomized controlled trials that involved neonates and evaluated the use of an antibiotic agent in the context of a neonatal infectious disease. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated methodological quality.
resultsA total of 35 randomized controlled trials were evaluated. The majority were conducted in a single hospital institution, without funding. Median sample size was 63 (34-103) participants. The most frequently evaluated antibiotic was gentamicin. Respectively, 18 (51%) and 17 (49%) trials evaluated the therapeutic or prophylactic use of antibiotics in various neonatal infections. Overall, the methodological quality was poor and did not improve over the years. Risk of bias was high in 66% of the trials.
conclusionsDesign and reporting of randomized controlled trials of antibacterial agents in neonates should be improved. Nevertheless, the necessity of implementing such trials when antibacterial efficacy has already been established in other age groups may be questioned and different methods of evaluation should be further developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.