Observational studyBMJ paediatrics open2022
Differentiating vaccine reactions from invasive bacterial infections in young infants presenting to the emergency department in the 4CMenB era: a retrospective observational comparison.
Observational study in BMJ paediatrics open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conundrums in the Management of Febrile Infants under Three Months of Age and Future Research.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating infants with adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs) or invasive bacterial infection (IBI) is a significant clinical challenge. Young infants post vaccination are therefore often admitted to the hospital for parenteral antibiotics to avoid missing rare cases of IBI.
methodsDuring a service evaluation project, we conducted a single-centre retrospective observational study of infants with IBI, urinary tract infection (UTI) or AEFI from two previously published cohorts. All patients presented to hospital in Oxfordshire, UK, between 2011 and 2018, spanning the introduction of the capsular group-B meningococcal vaccine (4CMenB) into routine immunisation schedules. Data collection from paper and electronic notes were unblinded. Clinical features, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'traffic light' risk of severe illness and laboratory tests performed on presentation, were described, and comparisons made using regression models, adjusting for age and sex. We also compared biochemical results on presentation to those of well infants post vaccination, with and without 4CMenB regimens.
resultsThe study included 232 infants: 40 with IBI, 97 with probable AEFI, 24 with possible AEFI, 27 with UTI and 44 post vaccination 'well' infants. C-reactive protein (CRP) was the only discriminatory blood marker, with CRP values above 83 mg/L only observed in infants with IBI or UTI. NICE risk stratification was significantly different between groups but still missed cases of IBI, and classification as intermediate risk was non-differential. Fever was more common in probable AEFI cases, while seizures and rashes were equally frequent. Diarrhoea and clinician-reported irritability or rigours were all more common in IBI.
conclusionsClinical features on presentation may aid risk stratification but cannot reliably differentiate IBI from AEFI in infants presenting to the emergency department. Blood results are generally unhelpful due to post vaccination inflammatory responses, particularly in children receiving 4CMenB vaccination. Improved biomarkers and clinical prediction tools are required to aid management in febrile infants post vaccination.
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.