Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253895›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Risk factors for neonatal sepsis in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Christine Manich Bech, Christina Nadia Stensgaard, Stine Lund, Charlotte Holm-Hansen, Jesper Sune Brok, Ulrikka Nygaard, Anja Poulsen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. BMJ paediatrics open · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Christine Manich BechGlobal Health Unit, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The Juliane Marie Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark christinemanichbech@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9093-6600
Christina Nadia StensgaardGlobal Health Unit, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The Juliane Marie Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0510-9753
Stine LundGlobal Health Unit, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The Juliane Marie Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Charlotte Holm-HansenGlobal Health Unit, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The Juliane Marie Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jesper Sune BrokDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ulrikka NygaardDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anja PoulsenGlobal Health Unit, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, The Juliane Marie Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify the risk factors for neonatal sepsis in Sub-Saharan Africa.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, African Index Medicus and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for observational studies from January 2010 to August 2020.

settingSub-Saharan Africa, at all levels of healthcare facilities.

participants'Neonates' (<28 days of age) at risk of developing either clinical and/or laboratory-dependent diagnosis of sepsis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of any risk factors for neonatal sepsis.

resultsA total of 36 studies with 23 605 patients from secondary or tertiary level of care facilities in 10 countries were included. Six studies were rated as good quality, 8 as fair and 22 as poor. Four studies were omitted in the meta-analysis due to insufficient data. The significant risk factors were resuscitation (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.35), low birth weight <1.5 kg (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.59 to 7.13) and 1.5-2.5 kg (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.83), low Apgar score at the first minute (OR 3.69, 95% CI 2.34 to 5.81) and fifth minute (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.45), prematurity <37 weeks (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.86), no crying at birth (OR 3.49, 95% CI 1.42 to 8.55), male sex (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.67), prolonged labour (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.27), premature rupture of membranes (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.47), multiple digital vaginal examinations (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.89), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.69), intrapartum maternal fever (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.39), foul-smelling vaginal discharge (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.16 to 5.09) and low socioeconomic status (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.35). We found considerable heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of 11 out of 15 identified risk factors.

conclusionMultiple risk factors for neonatal sepsis in Sub-Saharan Africa were identified. We revealed risk factors not listed by the WHO guidelines. The included studies overall had high risk of bias and high heterogeneity and thus, additional research of high quality is needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191067.

Indexed as

Infant, Newborn, DiseasesNeonatal SepsisSepsisFemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornMaleRisk FactorsNEONATOLOGYOBSTETRICSPaediatric infectious disease & immunisationPAEDIATRICS

Identifiers

PMID36253895
PMCPMC9438195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.