Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35059618›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Neonatal early-onset infections: Comparing the sensitivity of the neonatal early-onset sepsis calculator to the Dutch and the updated NICE guidelines in an observational cohort of culture-positive cases.

Linde Snoek, Merel N van Kassel, Jurjen F Krommenhoek, Niek B Achten, Frans B Plötz, Nina M van Sorge, Matthijs C Brouwer, Diederik van de Beek, Merijn W Bijlsma, NOGBS study group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Group BAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Linde SnoekDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Merel N van KasselDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jurjen F KrommenhoekDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Niek B AchtenDepartment of Paediatrics, Tergooi Hospital, Rijksstraatweg 1, 1261 AN Blaricum, the Netherlands.
Frans B PlötzDepartment of Paediatrics, Tergooi Hospital, Rijksstraatweg 1, 1261 AN Blaricum, the Netherlands.
Nina M van SorgeDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Matthijs C BrouwerDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Diederik van de BeekDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Merijn W BijlsmaDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
NOGBS study group
University of Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLEmma Kinderziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe early-onset sepsis calculator (EOSC) reduces unnecessary antibiotic treatment in newborns. However, its performance in identifying cases with early-onset disease (EOD) is unclear. We compared the sensitivity of the EOSC to the current Dutch and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines when applied to a cohort of newborns with culture-positive early-onset sepsis and meningitis.

methodsCulture-positive

findingsWe included 81 GBS and 7

interpretationThe sensitivity of the EOSC in identifying cases of EOD is lower compared to both Dutch and NICE guidelines, especially directly after birth. The EOSC relies more on clinical symptoms and results in less overtreatment of healthy newborns at the cost of later antibiotic treatment in initially well-appearing EOD patients.

fundingThis work was supported by grants received from Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; NWO-Vidi-Grant (grant number 917·17·308); NWO-Vici-Grant (grant number 918·19·627)), the Academic Medical Centre (AMC Innovative Impulse Grant) and Steun Emma Foundation Grant.

Indexed as

cohort studyearly-onset disease (EOD)EOS calculatormeningitisneonatesnewbornssepsissepsis calculator

Identifiers

PMID35059618
PMCPMC8760457
OpenAlexW4206801028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.