ArticleInfection2024
Wide use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in very low birth weight infants with spontaneous focal intestinal perforation-is it really justified?
Article in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on carbapenem use in children with cancer.Infection · 2026Article
- UniteID- a proposal for training pediatric ID specialists supported by an adult ID program.Infection · 2025Article
- Prevalence of pathogens associated with neonatal gastrointestinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gut pathogens · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVery low birth weight (VLBW) infants are at a risk of spontaneous focal intestinal perforation (FIP). Treatment includes supportive care, antibiotics, and drainage with/without surgery. Broad-spectrum antibiotic agents like carbapenems are applied frequently, although their use is not well-supported by the limited evidence of causal pathogens. We hypothesize that the use of carbapenems may not be necessary in VLBW infants with FIP. Our primary objective was to evaluate the antimicrobial use in VLBW infants with FIP in a cohort of the German Neonatal Network (GNN). The secondary objective was to characterize a subset in detail as a benchmark for future targets of stewardship.
methodsData on VLBW infants with FIP was collected prospectively within the GNN, a collaboration of 68 neonatal intensive care units (NICU). With regards to the primary objective, patient characteristics and antimicrobial treatment were extracted from the predefined GNN database. To address our secondary objective, an additional on-site assessment of laboratory and microbiological culture results were performed.
resultsIn the GNN cohort, 613/21,646 enrolled infants (2.8%) developed FIP requiring surgery. They were frequently treated with carbapenems (500/613 (81.6%)) and vancomycin (497/613 (81.1%)). In a subset of 124 VLBW infants, 77 (72.6%) had proof of gram-positive bacteria in the abdominal cavity, coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) predominantly. Despite the low prevalence of gram-negative bacteria (n = 6 (4.8%)), the combination of meropenem and vancomycin was prescribed most frequently (n = 96 (78.0%)).
conclusionThe use of carbapenems as broad-spectrum antimicrobials agents might not be justified in most VLBW infants with FIP. Knowledge on the development of the neonatal gut microbiota, local resistance patterns and individual microbiological findings should be taken into consideration when implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs).
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.