Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021
Antibiotic use for inpatient newborn care with suspected infection: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.
Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing maternal and newborn healthcare measurement: developing quality of care indices for postnatal and small and/or sick newborn care in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Assessing health systems' capacities to provide post-abortion care: insights from seven low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Introducing a standardised register for strengthening the inpatient management of newborns and sick children: Implementation research in selected health facilities of Bangladesh.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Body composition and metabolic consequences of antibiotics most frequently administered to newborns in intensive care units: an experimental study in healthy newborn rats.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Current Status and Problems of Newborn Infection Management at a Regional Hospital in Japan.The Kobe journal of medical sciences · 2023Article
- Measuring coverage and quality of supportive care for inpatient neonatal infections: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.Journal of global health · 2022Article
- Success and time implications of SpOJournal of global health · 2022Observational
- Managing pneumonia through facility-based integrated management of childhood management (IMCI) services: an analysis of the service availability and readiness among public health facilities in Bangladesh.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Count every newborn: EN-BIRTH study improving facility-based coverage and quality measurement in routine information systems.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Barriers and enablers to routine register data collection for newborns and mothers: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Observational
- Child mortality in Bangladesh - why, when, where and how? A national survey-based analysis.Journal of global health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn estimated 30 million neonates require inpatient care annually, many with life-threatening infections. Appropriate antibiotic management is crucial, yet there is no routine measurement of coverage. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) study aimed to validate maternal and newborn indicators to inform measurement of coverage and quality of care. This paper reports validation of reported antibiotic coverage by exit survey of mothers for hospitalized newborns with clinically-defined infections, including sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia.
methodsEN-BIRTH study was conducted in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania (July 2017-July 2018). Neonates were included based on case definitions to focus on term/near-term, clinically-defined infection syndromes (sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia), excluding major congenital abnormalities. Clinical management was abstracted from hospital inpatient case notes (verification) which was considered as the gold standard against which to validate accuracy of women's report. Exit surveys were conducted using questions similar to The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) approach for coverage of childhood pneumonia treatment. We compared survey-report to case note verified, pooled across the five sites using random effects meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 1015 inpatient neonates admitted in the five hospitals met inclusion criteria with clinically-defined infection syndromes. According to case note verification, 96.7% received an injectable antibiotic, although only 14.5% of them received the recommended course of at least 7 days. Among women surveyed (n = 910), 98.8% (95% CI: 97.8-99.5%) correctly reported their baby was admitted to a neonatal ward. Only 47.1% (30.1-64.5%) reported their baby's diagnosis in terms of sepsis, meningitis, or pneumonia. Around three-quarters of women reported their baby received an injection whilst in hospital, but 12.3% reported the correct antibiotic name. Only 10.6% of the babies had a blood culture and less than 1% had a lumbar puncture.
conclusionsWomen's report during exit survey consistently underestimated the denominator (reporting the baby had an infection), and even more so the numerator (reporting known injectable antibiotics). Admission to the neonatal ward was accurately reported and may have potential as a contact point indicator for use in household surveys, similar to institutional births. Strengthening capacity and use of laboratory diagnostics including blood culture are essential to promote appropriate use of antibiotics. To track quality of neonatal infection management, we recommend using inpatient records to measure specifics, requiring more research on standardised inpatient records.
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.