Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32819959›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis: a scoping review protocol.

Samuel R Neal, David Musorowegomo, Hannah Gannon, Mario Cortina Borja, Michelle Heys, Gwen Chimhini, Felicity Fitzgerald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. "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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

7 authors.

Samuel R Neal *Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6832-9839
David Musorowegomo *Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Hannah GannonPopulation, Policy and Practice, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Mario Cortina BorjaPopulation, Policy and Practice, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Michelle HeysPopulation, Policy and Practice, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Gwen ChimhiniDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Felicity FitzgeraldInfection, Immunity and Inflammation, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK felicity.fitzgerald@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Neonatal SepsisHumansInfant, NewbornModels, StatisticalPovertyPrognosisResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topicinfectious diseasesneonatal intensive & critical careneonatologypaediatricsstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID32819959
PMCPMC7440696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.