ArticleBMJ open2020
Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Overview of Global Challenges in Dealing with Neonatal Sepsis and Responsibility of Healthcare Workers": A Narrative Review.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Development and Implementation of Digital Diagnostic Algorithms for Neonatal Units in Zimbabwe and Malawi: Development and Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Diagnosing early-onset neonatal sepsis in low-resource settings: development of a multivariable prediction model.Archives of disease in childhood · 2023Article
- Improving the Treatment of Neonatal Sepsis in Resource-Limited Settings: Gaps and Recommendations.Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2023Review
- Development and implementation experience of a learning healthcare system for facility based newborn care in low resource settings: The Neotree.Learning health systems · 2023Article
- Infectious aetiologies of neonatal illness in south Asia classified using WHO definitions: a primary analysis of the ANISA study.The Lancet. Global health · 2022Article
- Predictive Scores for Late-Onset Neonatal Sepsis as an Early Diagnostic and Antimicrobial Stewardship Tool: What Have We Done So Far?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A data-driven health index for neonatal morbidities.iScience · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a sepsis diagnostic scoring model for neonates with suspected sepsis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of presepsin as a diagnostic tool in newborns with risk of early-onset neonatal sepsis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Relevance of Biomarkers Currently in Use or Research for Practical Diagnosis Approach of Neonatal Early-Onset Sepsis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeonatal sepsis is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Diagnosis is often difficult due to non-specific clinical features and the unavailability of laboratory tests in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Clinical prediction models have the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and rationalise antibiotic usage in neonatal units, which may result in reduced antimicrobial resistance and improved neonatal outcomes. In this paper, we outline our scoping review protocol to map the literature concerning clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis. We aim to provide an overview of existing models and evidence underlying their use and compare prediction models between high-income countries and LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol was developed with reference to recommendations by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Searches will include six electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus and the Cochrane Library) supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and citation analysis on included studies. No time period restrictions will be applied but only studies published in English or Spanish will be included. Screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers, with a third reviewer used to resolve conflicts. The results will be reported by narrative synthesis in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The nature of the scoping review methodology means that this study does not require ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, as well as through engagement with peers and relevant stakeholders.
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.