SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for neonatal sepsis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument: A systematic review of neonatal guidelines.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Bacterial prevalence and inflammatory changes in positive blood culture in community-acquired neonatal sepsis in Jordan.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Pathogen Profiles and Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns of Neonatal Sepsis in the Gulf Cooperation Council: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Developmental Pharmacokinetics of Antibiotics Used in Neonatal ICU: Focus on Preterm Infants.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Clinical practice guidelines for neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: A systematic review using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- Systematic Review and Critical Evaluation of Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Nutrition in Pregnancy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Neonatal sepsis (NS) continues to be a critical healthcare priority for the coming decades worldwide. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal sepsis and to summarize and compare their recommendations. Methods: This study involves a systematic review of CPGs. We identified clinical questions and eligibility criteria and searched and screened for CPGs using bibliographic and CPG databases and professional societies. Each included CPG was assessed by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We summarized the recommendations in a comparison practical table. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Its protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42021258732). Results: Our search retrieved 4,432 citations; of which five CPGs were eligible and appraised: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2018) (35 and 34 weeks); Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS 2017); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE 2021); and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QH 2020). Among these, the overall assessment of two evidence-based CPGs scored > 70% (NICE and QH), which was consistent with their higher scores in the six domains of the AGREE II instrument. In domain 3 (rigor of development), NICE and QH scored 99 and 60%, respectively. In domain 5 (applicability), they scored 96 and 74%, respectively, and in domain 6 (editorial independence), they scored 90 and 71%, respectively. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the NICE CPG was superior followed by the QH CPG with relevant recommendations for use in practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258732, PROSPERO (CRD42021258732).
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.