ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2024
Burden of infant group B
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A retrospective study of alternative antibiotics for prophylaxis of the Group B Streptococcus maternal-fetal disease.Infection · 2026Article
- Protecting Newborns from Multidrug-Resistant Infections: The Emerging Role of Bacteriophages.Viruses · 2026Review
- The evolving burden of childhood meningitis in low- and middle-income countries, 1990-2021: a decomposition and frontier analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Group BLancet regional health. Americas · 2025Article
- Profile of Perinatal Infections Among Abandoned Neonates Admitted in a Tertiary Hospital in Oman.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Group B Methods: Our population-based cohort study included pregnant individuals and their offspring from April 2012 to March 2018, utilising the provincial birth registry linked to health administrative data. GBS cases were ascertained through culture results and diagnostic codes. We calculated incidence rates for early-onset disease (EOD: 0-6 days), late-onset disease (LOD: 7-89 days), and ultra-LOD (ULOD: 90-365 days). Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) were derived via log-binomial regression to compare infant GBS rates according to screening and IAP-receipt. Findings: Among 776,148 liveborn infants, we identified 803 with GBS, with multiples exhibiting a threefold incidence increase. Incidence rates of EOD, LOD and ULOD were 0.49, 0.46 and 0.07 per 1000 livebirths, respectively. Of eligible pregnancies, 94% were screened; 23% screened positive, and 81% of them received IAP. Nearly 12% of term EOD infants had mothers who missed IAP despite screening positive. Maternal screening was associated with lower rates of any infant GBS disease (aIRR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.80). Among screen-positive births, IAP-receipt was associated with reduced rates of EOD (aIRR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48, 1.29) and LOD/ULOD (aIRR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.05), but confidence intervals included 1.0. Interpretation: Our study, the largest Canadian investigation into infant GBS disease, highlights both widespread adoption and ongoing challenges of the current prevention strategy. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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.