Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32126571›Full record

ReviewPediatric research2020

Challenges in developing a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis.

Matthew McGovern, Eric Giannoni, Helmut Kuester, Mark A Turner, Agnes van den Hoogen, Joseph M Bliss, Joyce M Koenig, Fleur M Keij, Jan Mazela, Rebecca Finnegan and 8 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
17.3field-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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational

11 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

18 authors at 10 institutions in 9 countries.

Matthew McGovernPaediatrics, Academic Centre, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College, the University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Eric GiannoniClinic of Neonatology, Department Mother-Woman-Child, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Helmut KuesterNeonatology, Clinic for Paediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Mark A TurnerInstitute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Centre for Women's Health Research, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK.
Agnes van den HoogenDivision Woman and Baby, Neonatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joseph M BlissDepartment of Pediatrics, Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Joyce M KoenigDivision of Neonatology, Saint Louis University, Edward Doisy Research Center, 1100 S. Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63104, USA.
Fleur M KeijDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan MazelaDepartment of Neonatology and Infectious Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, ul. Polna 33, 60535, Poznan, Poland.
Rebecca FinneganNeonatology, Coombe Women and Infants' University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Marina DegtyarevaNeonatology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Sinno H P SimonsDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem P de BoodeRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tobias StrunkNeonatal Health and Development, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia.
Irwin K M ReissDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
James L WynnDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Eleanor J MolloyPaediatrics, Academic Centre, Tallaght University Hospital, Trinity College, the University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. eleanor.molloy@tcd.ie.
Infection, Inflammation, Immunology and Immunisation (I4) section of the ESPR
Trinity College Dublin · IEBrown University · USPirogov Russian National Research Medical University · RUPoznan University of Medical Sciences · PLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Liverpool · GBErasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NLThe Kids Research Institute Australia · AUUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the neonatal population, and at present, there is no unified definition of neonatal sepsis. Existing consensus sepsis definitions within paediatrics are not suited for use in the NICU and do not address sepsis in the premature population. Many neonatal research and surveillance networks have criteria for the definition of sepsis within their publications though these vary greatly and there is typically a heavy emphasis on microbiological culture. The concept of organ dysfunction as a diagnostic criterion for sepsis is rarely considered in neonatal literature, and it remains unclear how to most accurately screen neonates for organ dysfunction. Accurately defining and screening for sepsis is important for clinical management, health service design and future research. The progress made by the Sepsis-3 group provides a roadmap of how definitions and screening criteria may be developed. Similar initiatives in neonatology are likely to be more challenging and would need to account for the unique presentation of sepsis in term and premature neonates. The outputs of similar consensus work within neonatology should be twofold: a validated definition of neonatal sepsis and screening criteria to identify at-risk patients earlier in their clinical course. IMPACT: There is currently no consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and the definitions that are currently in use are varied.A consensus definition of neonatal sepsis would benefit clinicians, patients and researchers.Recent progress in adults with publication of Sepsis-3 provides guidance on how a consensus definition and screening criteria for sepsis could be produced in neonatology.We discuss common themes and potential shortcomings in sepsis definitions within neonatology.We highlight the need for a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and the challenges that this task poses.

Indexed as

Neonatal SepsisNeonatologyBiomarkersConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicEuropeHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMass ScreeningPrognosisTreatment OutcomeBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID32126571
OpenAlexW3009777728

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.