Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32011640›Full record

SynthesisJAMA pediatrics2020

Assessment of C-Reactive Protein Diagnostic Test Accuracy for Late-Onset Infection in Newborn Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Jennifer Valeska Elli Brown, Nick Meader, Kath Wright, Jemma Cleminson, William McGuire

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer Valeska Elli BrownCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Nick MeaderCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Kath WrightCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Jemma CleminsonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
William McGuireCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
University of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Rapid and accurate diagnosis of late-onset infection in newborn infants could inform treatment decisions and avoid unnecessary administration of antibiotics. Objective: To compare the accuracy of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) with that of microbiological blood culture for diagnosing late-onset infection in newborns. Data Sources: MEDLINE (1946-2019), Embase (1946-2019), and Science Citation Index (1900-2019) databases were searched for references (any language). The MeSH search terms included were "exp infant, newborn/" or "premature birth/" plus free text synonyms; and "C-reactive protein/" plus free text synonyms; and "exp sepsis/" or "exp bacterial infections/" plus free text synonyms. The proceedings from relevant conferences and references of identified papers were scrutinized. Authors were contacted to request missing data. Study Selection: Cohort and cross-sectional studies were included that compared the accuracy of serum CRP levels with microbiological culture results to diagnose late-onset (>72 hours after birth) infection in newborns (any gestational age) hospitalized after birth. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility. Among 10 394 records, 148 studies were assessed as full texts. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline extension for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews was followed. Two reviewers assessed the method quality of each study using guidance from the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Test Methods Group (adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary meta-analysis outcome was diagnostic test accuracy of serum CRP level taken at initial investigation of an infant with suspected late-onset infection. The median specificity (proportion of true-negative results) and calculated pooled sensitivity (proportion of true-positive results) were determined by generating hierarchical summary receiver characteristic operating curves. Results: In total, 22 studies with 2255 infants were included (sample size range, 11-590 infants). Participants in most studies were preterm (<37 weeks) or very low-birth weight (<1500 g) infants. Two studies additionally enrolled infants born at term. Most studies (16) used a prespecified CRP level cutoff for a "positive" index test (5-10 mg/L), and most studies (17) used the culture of a pathogenic microorganism from blood as the reference standard. Risk of bias was low with independent assessment of index and reference tests. At median specificity (0.74), pooled sensitivity was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72). Adding serum CRP level to the assessment of an infant with a 40% pretest probability of late-onset infection (the median for the included studies) generated posttest probabilities of 26% for a negative test result and 61% for a positive test result. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that determination of serum CRP level at initial evaluation of an infant with suspected late-onset infection is unlikely to aid early diagnosis or to select infants to undergo further investigation or treatment with antimicrobial therapy or other interventions.

Indexed as

BiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinHumansInfant, NewbornInfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID32011640
PMCPMC7042944
OpenAlexW3003970612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.