SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020
Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology of ophthalmia neonatorum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
- Pediatrics advances in 2024: choices in allergy, cardiology, critical care, endocrinology, gastroenterology, immunology, infectious diseases, neonatology, nephrology, neurology, nutrition, palliative care respiratory tract illnesses, and social media.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
- Neonatal Gonococcal Conjunctivitis Caused by Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Emerging infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Are Chlamydia Trachomatis and Neisseria Gonorrhoeae Screenings in Pregnant Women Being Properly Performed? A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study in Italy.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Observational
- Article
- The epidemiology and the pathogen distribution of pediatric dacryocystitis in Chinese population 2017-2022.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- Current alternative therapies for treating drug-resistantFuture microbiology · 2024Review
- Intersociety Position Statement on the Prevention of Ophthalmia Neonatorum in Italy.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Correction: Cochrane corner: interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Pediatric Conjunctivitis: A Review of Clinical Manifestations, Diagnosis, and Management.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The safety profile of Bald's eyesalve for the treatment of bacterial infections.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Euphrasia Eye Drops in Preterm Neonates With Ocular Discharge: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Emergency management: ophthalmia neonatorum.Community eye health · 2018Article
- Article
- Risk factors for neonatal conjunctivitis in babies of HIV-1 infected mothers.Ophthalmic epidemiologyArticle
- In praise of povidone-iodine application in ophthalmology.Survey of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOphthalmia neonatorum is an infection of the eyes in newborns that can lead to blindness, particularly if the infection is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antiseptic or antibiotic medication is dispensed into the eyes of newborns, or dispensed systemically, soon after delivery to prevent neonatal conjunctivitis and potential vision impairment.
objectives1. To determine if any type of systemic or topical eye medication is better than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. 2. To determine if any one systemic or topical eye medication is better than any other medication in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers, date of last search 4 October 2019. We also searched references of included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any topical, systemic, or combination medical interventions used to prevent ophthalmia neonatorum in newborns compared with placebo, no prophylaxis, or with each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Outcomes were: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at 12 months, conjunctivitis at 1 month (gonococcal (GC), chlamydial (CC), bacterial (BC), any aetiology (ACAE), or unknown aetiology (CUE)), and adverse effects. MAIN
resultsWe included 30 trials with a total of 79,198 neonates. Eighteen studies were conducted in high-income settings (the USA, Europe, Israel, Canada), and 12 were conducted in low- and middle-income settings (Africa, Iran, China, Indonesia, Mexico). Fifteen of the 30 studies were quasi-randomised. We judged every study to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Ten studies included a comparison arm with no prophylaxis. There were 14 different prophylactic regimens and 12 different medications in the 30 included studies. Any prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis Unless otherwise indicated, the following evidence comes from studies assessing one or more of the following interventions: tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at any time point. There was only very low-certainty evidence on the risk of GC with prophylaxis (4/5340 newborns) compared to no prophylaxis (5/2889) at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 2.65, 3 studies). Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in effect on CC (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, 4874 newborns, 2 studies) and BC (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.93, 3685 newborns, 2 studies). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a probable reduction in risk of ACAE at one month (RR 0.65, 95% 0.54 to 0.78, 9666 newborns, 8 studies assessing tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%, colostrum, bacitracin-phenacaine ointment). There was only very low-certainty evidence on CUE (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.28, 330 newborns, 1 study). Very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects suggested no increased nasolacrimal duct obstruction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, 404 newborns, 1 study of erythromycin 0.5% and silver nitrate 1%) and no increased keratitis (single study of 40 newborns assessing silver nitrate 1% with no events). Any prophylaxis compared to another prophylaxis Overall, evidence comparing different interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention. However, most of this evidence was of low-certainty and was extremely limited. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere are no data on whether prophylaxis for ophthalmia neonatorum prevents serious outcomes such as blindness or any adverse visual outcome. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the use of prophylaxis may lead to a reduction in the incidence of ACAE in newborns but the evidence for effect on GC, CC or BC was less certain. Comparison of individual interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention, but data were limited. A trial comparing tetracycline, povidone-iodine (single administration), and chloramphenicol for GC and CC could potentially provide the community with an effective, universally applicable prophylaxis against ophthalmia neonatorum.
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.