ArticlePloS one2019
Group B streptococcal screening, intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and neonatal early-onset infection rates in an Australian local health district: 2006-2016.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Oral Supplementation with a Multi-Strain Probiotic Preparation on Group B Streptococcus (GBS) Carriage in Pregnant Women-A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Relationship between group B Streptococcal rectovaginal colonization and Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Risk factors for maternal pyrexia, infection and sepsis in four hospitals providing maternity care in New South Wales, Australia: a cohort study.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Unraveling the Microbiome-Human Body Axis: A Comprehensive Examination of Therapeutic Strategies, Interactions and Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Mood and microbes: a comprehensive review of intestinal microbiota's impact on depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Review
- Adherence to screening and management guidelines of maternal Group B Streptococcus colonization in pregnancy.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Article
- Impact of antibiotics on the human microbiome and consequences for host health.MicrobiologyOpen · 2022Review
- Poor Adherence to the Screening-Based Strategy of Group B Streptococcus Despite Colonization of Pregnant Women in Greece.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Indications and Clinical Profile of Neonatal Admissions: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Analysis from a Single Academic Center in Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- To screen or not to screen women for Group B Streptococcus (Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) to reduce the likelihood of neonatal early-onset group B streptococcal infection (EOGBS) has coincided with major reductions in incidence. While the decline has been largely ascribed to IAP following either universal screening or a risk-based approach to identify mothers whose babies may most benefit from IAP, there is lack of high quality evidence to support this view.
aimsTo describe management of maternal GBS colonisation in one local health district using universal screening and assess rates of EOGBS over time.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was undertaken to describe compliance with GBS management, to determine the incidence of EOGBS and association between rates and maternal screening. Linking routinely collected maternity and pathology data, we explored temporal trends using logistic regression and covariates for potential effect modifiers.
resultsOur cohort included 62,281 women who had 92,055 pregnancies resulting in 93,584 live born babies. Screening occurred in 76% of pregnancies; 69% had a result recorded, 21.5% of those were positive for GBS. Prophylaxis was used by 79% of this group. Eighteen babies developed EOGBS, estimated incidence/1000 live births in 2006 and 2016 was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.63) and 0.1 (95% CI, 0 to 0.2) respectively. Seven of 10 term babies with EOGBS were born to mothers who screened negative. Data were unable to provide evidence of difference in rates of EOGBS between screened and unscreened pregnancies. We estimated the difference in EOGBS incidence from crude and weighted models to be 0 (95% CI, -0. 2 to 0.17) and -0.01 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.10) /1000 live births respectively.
conclusionNo change was detected in rates of EOGBS over time and no difference in EOGBS in babies of screened and unscreened populations. Screening and prophylaxis rates were modest. Limitations of universal screening suggest alternatives be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.