Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28574980›Full record

ReviewPediatric research2017

Diagnostics for neonatal sepsis: current approaches and future directions.

Pui-Ying Iroh Tam, Catherine M Bendel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Bacteria and host: what does this mean for sepsis bottleneck?World journal of emergency medicine · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Pui-Ying Iroh TamDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Catherine M BendelDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress has been made in the reduction of morbidity and mortality from neonatal sepsis. However, diagnosis continues to rely primarily on conventional microbiologic techniques, which can be inaccurate. The objective of this review is to provide the clinician with an overview of the current information available on diagnosing this condition. We review currently available diagnostic approaches for documenting neonatal sepsis and also describe novel approaches for diagnosing infection in neonates who are under development and investigation. Substantial progress has been made with molecular approaches and further development of non-culture-based methods offer promise. The potential ability to incorporate antimicrobial resistance gene testing in addition to pathogen identification may provide a venue to incorporate a predominantly molecular platform into a larger program of neonatal care.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesGene Expression ProfilingMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesBiomarkersBlood Cell CountDNA, BacterialGenetic MarkersHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal SepsisPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsBiomarkersDNA, BacterialGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID28574980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.