ArticlePloS one2015
Performance of a Novel Molecular Method in the Diagnosis of Late-Onset Sepsis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates: a diagnostic test accuracy review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- C-reactive protein for diagnosing late-onset infection in newborn infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the use of a generic molecular assay to 'standard' investigations used to assist the diagnosis of late onset bacterial sepsis in very low birth weight infants (VLBW, <1500 g).
methodsVLBW infants, greater than 48 hours of age, who were clinically suspected to have sepsis were investigated using standard tests (full blood count, C-reactive protein (at presentation) and blood culture), in addition, blood was taken for a universal molecular assay (16S rRNA reverse transcriptase PCR) for comparison. Clinical data were recorded during the suspected infection episode. A validated sepsis score (NEO-KISS) was used to retrospectively determine the presence of sepsis (independent of blood culture). The performance of each of the tests were compared by sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likihood ratios (+/-LR) and postive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV).
resultsSixty-five babies with suspected clinical sepsis were prospectively included. The performance indicators are presented with 95% confidence limits. For the detection of bacteria, blood culture had sensitivity of 0.57 (0.34-0.78), specificity of 0.45 (0.30-0.61); +LR of 1.05 (0.66-1.66) and-LR of 0.94 (0.52-1.7); PPV of 33.3 (18.56-50.97) and NPV of 68.97 (49.17-87.72). Serum CRP had sensitivity of 0.92 (0.64-1) and specificity of 0.36 (0.17-0.59); +LR of 1.45 (1-2.1) and-LR of 0.21 (0.03-1.5); PPV of 44.46 (26.6-66.6) and NPV of 88.9 (51.8-99.7). The universal molecular assay had sensitivity of 0.76 (0.53-0.92), specificity of 0.95 (0.85-0.99); +LR of 16.8 (4.2-66.3) and-LR of 0.25 (0.1-0.5); PPV of 88.9 (65.3-98.6) and NPV of 89.4 (76.9-96.5).
conclusionsIn VLBW infants this universal molecular assay performed better in the diagnosis of late onset sepsis (LOS) than blood culture and CRP. Further development is required to explore and improve the performance of the assay in real-time diagnosis.
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.