Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31416437›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2019

Better care for babies: the added value of a modified reverse syphilis testing algorithm for the treatment of congenital syphilis in a maternity Hospital in Central African Republic.

Oluwakemi F Ogundipe, Rafael Van den Bergh, Behounde Thierry, Kudakwashe C Takarinda, Claude P Muller, Collins Timire, Severine Caluwaerts, Pascale Chaillet, Isabel Zuniga

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 88% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Oluwakemi F OgundipeMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Centre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. Oluwakemi.ogundipe@brussels.msf.org.ORCID 0000-0001-8894-744X
Rafael Van den BerghMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Centre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Behounde ThierryMinistry of Health, Bangui, Central African Republic.
Kudakwashe C TakarindaInternational Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Paris, France.
Claude P MullerLuxembourg Institute of Health, Esch-Alzette, and Laboratoire National de Santé, Dudelange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Collins TimireInternational Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Paris, France.
Severine CaluwaertsMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Centre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Pascale ChailletMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Centre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Isabel ZunigaMédecins Sans Frontières, Operational Centre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Médecins Sans Frontières · BEMinistry of Health and Child Welfare · ZWLuxembourg Institute of Health · LUUniversity of Bangui · CF

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn high syphilis prevalence settings, the syphilis testing and treatment strategy for mothers and newborns must be tailored to balance the risk of over treatment against the risk of missing infants at high-risk for congenital syphilis. Adding a non-treponemal test (Rapid Plasma Reagin - RPR) to a routine rapid treponemal test (SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0) for women giving birth can help distinguish between neonates at high and low-risk for congenital syphilis to tailor their treatment. Treatment for neonates born to RPR-reactive mothers (high-risk) is 10 days of intravenous penicillin, while one dose of intramuscular penicillin is sufficient for those born to RPR non-reactive mothers (low-risk). This strategy was adopted in March 2017 in a Médecins Sans Frontières supported hospital in Bangui, Central African Republic. This study examined the operational consequences of this algorithm on the treatment of newborns.

methodsThe study was a retrospective cohort study. Routine programmatic data were analysed. Descriptive statistical analysis was done. Total antibiotic days, hospitalization days and estimated costs were compared to scenarios without RPR testing and another where syphilis treatment was the sole reason for hospitalization.

resultsOf 202 babies born to SD Bioline positive mothers 89 (44%) and 111(55%) were RPR-reactive and non-reactive respectively (2 were unrecorded) of whom 80% and 88% of the neonates received appropriate antibiotic treatment respectively. Neonates born to RPR non-reactive mothers were 80% less likely to have sepsis [Relative risk (RR) = 0.20; 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 0.04-0.92] and 9% more likely to be discharged [RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.00-1.18] compared to those of RPR-reactive mothers. There was a 52%, and 49% reduction in antibiotic and hospitalization days respectively compared to a scenario with SD-Bioline testing only. Total hospitalization costs were also 52% lower compared to a scenario without RPR testing.

conclusionsThis testing strategy can help identify infants at high and low risk for congenital syphilis and treat them accordingly at substantial cost savings. It is especially appropriate for settings with high syphilis endemicity, limited resources and overcrowded maternities. The babies additionally benefit from lower risks of exposure to unnecessary antibiotics and nosocomial infections.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCentral African RepublicCohort StudiesFemaleHospitals, MaternityHumansInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousRetrospective StudiesSyphilisSyphilis, CongenitalSyphilis SerodiagnosisAnti-Bacterial AgentsCentral African RepublicCongenitalLow resourceNon-treponemalOperational researchSyphilis

Identifiers

PMID31416437
PMCPMC6694671
OpenAlexW2967966122

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.