Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28360256›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Predicting late-onset sepsis by routine neonatal screening for colonisation by gram-negative bacteria in neonates at intensive care units: a protocol for a systematic review.

Thomas Harder, Juliane Seidel, Tim Eckmanns, Bettina Weiss, Sebastian Haller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas HarderRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane SeidelRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Tim EckmannsRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Bettina WeissRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Sebastian HallerRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHospitals conduct extensive screening procedures to assess colonisation of the body surface of neonates by gram-negative bacteria to avoid complications like late-onset sepsis. However, the benefits of these procedures are controversially discussed. Until now, no systematic review has investigated the value of routine screening for colonisation by gram-negative bacteria in neonates for late-onset sepsis prediction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review, considering studies of any design that include infants up to an age of 12 months. We will search MEDLINE and EMBASE (inception to 2016), reference lists and grey literature. Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will extract data on study characteristics and study results. Risk of bias will be assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tools. Subgroup analyses are planned according to characteristics of studies, participants, index tests and outcome. For quantitative data synthesis on prognostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of screening to detect late-onset sepsis will be calculated. If sufficient data are available, we will calculate summary estimates using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics and bivariate models. Applying a risk factor approach, pooled summary estimates will be calculated as relative risk or OR, using fixed-effects and random-effects models. I-squared will be used to assess heterogeneity. All calculations will be performed in Stata V14.1 (College Station, Texas, USA). The results will be used to calculate positive and negative predictive value and number needed to be screened to prevent one case of sepsis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to assess certainty in the evidence. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guideline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not require ethical approval since it is not carried out in humans. The systematic review will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016036664.

Indexed as

Early DiagnosisGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningPrognosisRisk FactorsSelection BiasSepsisSystematic Reviews as Topicneonatal sepsisPrognostic accuracyProtocolscreeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28360256
PMCPMC5372028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.