Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30904850›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Modelling the effect of the introduction of antenatal screening for group B

David Bevan, Alicia White, John Marshall, Catherine Peckham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. To screen or not to screen women for Group B Streptococcus (Therapeutic advances in infectious disease
    Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David BevanDepartment of Health and Human Services, Melbourne, Australia.
Alicia WhiteBazian Ltd, London, UK.
John MarshallUK National Screening Committee, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6239-774X
Catherine PeckhamDepartment of Paediatric Epidemiology Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Health and Human Services · AUUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo estimate the potential impact of the addition of culture-based screening for group B streptococcus (GBS) carriage in pregnancy to a risk-based prevention policy in the UK. We aimed to establish agreement within a multidisciplinary group of key stakeholders on the model input parameters.

designDeterministic model using a consensus approach for the selection of input parameters. SETTING AND

participantsA theoretical annual cohort of 711 999 live births in the UK (excluding births by elective caesarean section).

interventionsCulture-based screening for GBS at 35-37 weeks of pregnancy added to the recommended risk-based prevention policy in place on the date of modelling. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes assessed included use of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP), early onset GBS (EOGBS), EOGBS mortality, severe EOGBS-related morbidity and maternal penicillin anaphylaxis.

resultsWith no prophylaxis strategy, the model estimated that there would be 421 cases of culture positive EOGBS in a year (0.59/1000 live births). In the risk-based prophylaxis scenario, 30 666 women were estimated to receive IAP and 70 cases of EOGBS were prevented. Addition of screening resulted in a further 96 260 women receiving IAP and the prevention of an additional 52 to 57 cases of EOGBS. This resulted in the prevention of three EOGBS deaths and four cases of severe disability. With screening, an additional 1675 to 1854 women receive IAP to prevent one EOGBS case and 24 065 to 32 087 receive IAP to prevent one EOGBS death.

conclusionsThe evidence base available for a broad range of model input parameters was limited, leading to uncertainty in the estimates produced by the model. Where data was limited, the model input parameters were agreed with the multidisciplinary stakeholder group, the first time this has been done to our knowledge. The main impact of screening is likely to be on the large group of low-risk women where the clinical impact of EOGBS tends to be less severe. This model suggests that the reduction in mortality and severe disability due to EOGBS with antenatal GBS screening is likely to be very limited, with a high rate of overdetection and overuse of antibiotics.

Indexed as

Prenatal DiagnosisAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisConsensusFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMicrobial Sensitivity TestsObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcus agalactiaeUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial Agentsmaternal medicinepublic healthscreening

Identifiers

PMID30904850
PMCPMC6475221
OpenAlexW2924593230

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.