Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31666311›Full record

Observational studyArchives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition2020

Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis before and after introducing routine prophylactic

Claire Robertson, George M Savva, Raducu Clapuci, Jacqueline Jones, Hassan Maimouni, Eleanor Brown, Ashish Minocha, Lindsay J Hall, Paul Clarke

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Frontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Diagnosing and engineering gut microbiomes.EMBO molecular medicine · 2024
    Review
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Claire RobertsonNeonatal Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
George M SavvaCore Science Resources, Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK.
Raducu ClapuciNeonatal Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Jacqueline JonesNeonatal Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Hassan MaimouniNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Eleanor BrownNeonatal Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Ashish MinochaPaediatric and Neonatal Surgery, Jenny Lind Children's Hospital, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Lindsay J HallGut Microbes and Health, Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK.
Paul ClarkeNeonatal Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK paul.clarke@nnuh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6203-7632
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBQuadram Institute · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J004529/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/00044409Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10353Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10355Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10356Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare rates of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), late-onset sepsis, and mortality in 5-year epochs before and after implementation of routine daily multistrain probiotics administration in high-risk neonates.

designSingle-centre retrospective observational study over the 10-year period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017.

settingLevel 3 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, UK. PATIENTS: Preterm neonates at high risk of NEC: admitted to NICU within 3 days of birth at <32 weeks' gestation or at 32-36 weeks' gestation and of birth weight <1500 g.

interventionPrior to 1 January 2013 probiotics were not used. Thereafter, dual-species

main outcome measuresIncidence of NEC (modified Bell's stage 2a or greater), late-onset sepsis, and mortality.

resultsRates of NEC fell from 7.5% (35/469 neonates) in the pre-implementation epoch to 3.1% (16/513 neonates) in the routine probiotics epoch (adjusted sub-hazard ratio=0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85, p=0.014). The more than halving of NEC rates after probiotics introduction was independent of any measured covariates, including breast milk feeding rates. Cases of late-onset sepsis fell from 106/469 (22.6%) to 59/513 (11.5%) (p<0.0001), and there was no episode of sepsis due to

conclusionsAdministration of multispecies

Indexed as

Bifidobacterium bifidumEnterocolitis, NecrotizingLactobacillus acidophilusEnteral NutritionFemaleHumansIncidenceInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Premature, DiseasesIntensive Care Units, NeonatalMaleProbioticsRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomLate-onset sepsismicrobiotanecrotizing enterocolitispretermvery low birth weight

Identifiers

PMID31666311
PMCPMC7363787
OpenAlexW2982305839

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.