Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39507368›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2024

Burden of infant group B

Romina Fakhraei, Deshayne B Fell, Darine El-Chaâr, Nisha Thampi, Beate Sander, Kevin Antoine Brown, Natasha Crowcroft, Shelly Bolotin, Jon Barrett, Elizabeth K Darling and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Group BLancet regional health. Americas · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

20 authors.

Romina FakhraeiUniversity of Ottawa, Canada.
Deshayne B FellUniversity of Ottawa, Canada.
Darine El-ChaârUniversity of Ottawa, Canada.
Nisha ThampiUniversity of Ottawa, Canada.
Beate SanderUniversity of Toronto, Canada.
Kevin Antoine BrownUniversity of Toronto, Canada.
Natasha CrowcroftUniversity of Toronto, Canada.
Shelly BolotinUniversity of Toronto, Canada.
Jon BarrettMcMaster University, Canada.
Elizabeth K DarlingMcMaster University, Canada.
Nahuel FittipaldiUniversité de Montréal, Canada.
Theresa LamagniUK Health Security Agency, United Kingdom.
Allison McGeerMount Sinai Hospital, Canada.
Michelle MurtiPublic Health Ontario, Canada.
Manish SadaranganiUniversity of British Columbia, Canada.
Kevin L SchwartzUniversity of Toronto, Canada.
Abdool YasseenUniversity of Toronto, Canada.
Matthew TunisPublic Health Agency of Canada, Canada.
William PetrcichICES, Ontario, Canada.
Kumanan WilsonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BurdenEarly onsetEstimateGroup B StreptococcusIncidenceLate onsetStreptococcus agalactiae

Identifiers

PMID39507368
PMCPMC11539648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.