Observational studyBMJ open2023
Comparison of diagnoses of early-onset sepsis associated with use of Sepsis Risk Calculator versus NICE CG149: a prospective, population-wide cohort study in London, UK, 2020-2021.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aligning neonatal sepsis triage diagnostics with WHO target product profiles in low- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- Real-world use of Serial Clinical Observation in culture-proven early-onset sepsis: timing of recognition, treatment and retrospective comparison with the Neonatal Sepsis Calculator.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Current knowledge and future perspectives on management and prevention of group B streptococcus in neonates and young infants.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2026Review
- Antimicrobial Therapies for Early-Onset Group B Streptococcal Sepsis: Insights from an Italian Multicenter Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to compare the incidence of early-onset sepsis (EOS) in infants ≥34 weeks' gestation identified >24 hours after birth, in hospitals using the Kaiser Permanente Sepsis Risk Calculator (SRC) with hospitals using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. DESIGN AND
settingProspective observational population-wide cohort study involving all 26 hospitals with neonatal units colocated with maternity services across London (10 using SRC, 16 using NICE).
participantsAll live births ≥34 weeks' gestation between September 2020 and August 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: EOS was defined as isolation of
resultsOf 99 683 live births, 42 952 (43%) were born in SRC hospitals and 56 731 (57%) in NICE hospitals. The overall incidence of EOS (<72 hours) was 0.64/1000 live births. The incidence of EOS identified >24 hours was 2.3/100 000 (n=1) for SRC vs 7.1/100 000 (n=4) for NICE (OR 0.5, 95% CI (0.1 to 2.7)). This corresponded to (1/20) 5% (SRC) vs (4/45) 8.9% (NICE) of EOS cases (χ=0.3, p=0.59). Empiric antibiotics were commenced >24 hours to 7 days after birth in 4.4/1000 (n=187) for SRC vs 2.9/1000 (n=158) for NICE (OR 1.5, 95% CI (1.2 to 1.9)). 3111 (7%) infants received antibiotics in the first 24 hours in SRC hospitals vs 8428 (15%) in NICE hospitals.
conclusionThere was no significant difference in the incidence of EOS identified >24 hours after birth between SRC and NICE hospitals. SRC use was associated with 50% fewer infants receiving antibiotics in the first 24 hours of life.
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.