Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30379228›Full record

ArticleRevista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo2018

Assessment and comparison of bacterial load levels determined by quantitative amplifications in blood culture-positive and negative neonatal sepsis.

Inês Stranieri, Kelly Aparecida Kanunfre, Jonatas Cristian Rodrigues, Lidia Yamamoto, Maria Isabel Valdomir Nadaf, Patricia Palmeira, Thelma Suely Okay

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Gentamicin CAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Molecular Methodologies for Improved Polymicrobial Sepsis Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Look Who's Talking: Host and Pathogen Drivers ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Inês StranieriUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Hospital Universitário Julio Muller, Laboratório de Análises Clínicas, Divisão de Microbiologia, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Kelly Aparecida KanunfreUniversidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, Laboratório de Soroepidemiologia e Imunobiologia, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jonatas Cristian RodriguesUniversidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, Laboratório de Soroepidemiologia e Imunobiologia, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lidia YamamotoUniversidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, Laboratório de Soroepidemiologia e Imunobiologia, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maria Isabel Valdomir NadafUniversidade Federal do Mato Grosso, Faculdade de Medicina, Departamento de Pediatria, Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil.
Patricia PalmeiraUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina, Departamento de Pediatria, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Thelma Suely OkayUniversidade de São Paulo, Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, Laboratório de Soroepidemiologia e Imunobiologia, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso · BRHospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRInstituto de Medicina Avançada · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial sepsis remains a major cause of mortality and blood cultures are the gold standard of laboratory diagnosis even though they lack sensitivity in neonates. Culturenegative sepsis, also known as clinical sepsis, has long been considered a diagnosis in neonatal intensive care units because, as well as culture-positive infants, culture-negative neonates have worse prognosis in comparison with non-infected ones. Quantitative amplifications are used to detect bacterial infections in neonates but results are considered only in a qualitative way (positive or negative). The aim of the present study was to determine and compare bacterial load levels in blood culture-positive and culture-negative neonatal sepsis. Seventy neonates with clinical and laboratory evidence of infection admitted at three neonatal intensive care units were classified as blood culture-positive or culture-negative. Blood samples obtained at the same time of blood cultures had bacterial load levels assessed through a 16S rDNA qPCR. Blood cultures were positive in 29 cases (41.4%) and qPCR in 64 (91.4%). In the 29 culture-positive cases, 100% were also positive by qPCR, while in the 41 culture-negative cases, 35 (85.4%) were positive by qPCR. Bacterial load levels were in general < 50 CFU/mL, but were significantly higher in culture-positive cases (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.013), although clinical and laboratory findings were similar, excepting for deaths. In conclusion, the present study has shown that blood culture-negative neonates have lower bacteria load levels in their bloodstream when compared to blood culture-positive infants.

Indexed as

Bacterial LoadCohort StudiesGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalNeonatal SepsisPrognosisProspective StudiesReal-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID30379228
PMCPMC6201740
OpenAlexW2898099579

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.