Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30577822›Full record

SynthesisBMC research notes2018

Sepsis prediction during outbreaks at neonatal intensive care units through body surface screening for Gram-negative bacteria: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thomas Harder, Sebastian Haller, Tim Eckmanns, Juliane Seidel

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas HarderDepartment for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Seestraße 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany. hardert@rki.de.
Sebastian HallerDepartment for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Seestraße 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Tim EckmannsDepartment for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Seestraße 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane SeidelDepartment for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Seestraße 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Robert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review focusses on the prognostic accuracy of neonatal body surface screening during outbreaks caused by Gram-negative bacteria for prediction of sepsis. In a previous systematic review we reported that only limited evidence of very low quality exists regarding the predictive value of this screening under routine conditions. We aimed to investigate whether this is different in outbreak settings.

resultsWe identified five studies performed during outbreaks in three countries, comprising a total of 316 infants. All studies were at high risk of bias. In outbreak settings, pooled sensitivity of body surface screening to predict sepsis was 98% (95 CI 60 to 100%), while pooled specificity was 26% (95% CI 0.5 to 96%). Evidence quality was low for all outcomes. Extending a previously published systematic review, we show here that in contrast to routine settings sensitivity of body surface screening for sepsis prediction is very high, while specificity is still insufficient. Surface screening appears to be a useful component of bundles of interventions used during outbreaks, but the evidence base is still limited. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42016036664.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksGram-Negative BacteriaIntensive Care Units, NeonatalCross InfectionHumansInfant, NewbornNeonatal ScreeningSepsisGram-negative bacteriaMeta-analysisOutbreaksPrognostic accuracySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30577822
PMCPMC6303936
OpenAlexW2906496849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.