Observational studyJornal de pediatria
Early onset sepsis: clinical observation or risk factors approach?
Observational study in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nomogram to predict probable meningitis in very preterm and/or very low birth weight infants with early-onset sepsis: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Maternal predictors of early-onset sepsis in neonates: a multicenter retrospective cohort study and risk prediction model.Journal of translational medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the perinatal risk factors approach for early-onset sepsis (EOS), which is based on categorical risk stratification, with the clinical observation-based approach, evaluating their impact on laboratory testing frequency, the use of antibiotic therapy, and EOS incidence.
methodsRetrospective observational study, conducted from November 2021 to March 2022. Newborns (NB) at 34 wk of age were included and clinical data from prenatal care, birth, hospitalization, and laboratory tests were evaluated.
resultsSample of 1,086 newborns. Ninety-seven NB (8.9 %) underwent infectious screening in the clinical observation approach versus 279 (26.5 %) in the perinatal risk factors approach, which represents a 65.2 % decrease in the clinical observation approach (p < 0.01). Under the perinatal risk factors approach, 35 (3.2 %) of NBs received empirical antibiotic therapy for EOS, versus only 22 (2.0 %) in the clinical observation approach, which would be a 37.1 % decrease in the clinical observation strategy (p < 0.01). We found no difference in the incidence of culture-confirmed EOS.
conclusionThe clinical observation approach, when compared to the perinatal risk factors approach, reduces laboratory testing and the use of antibiotic therapy, with no impact on the incidence of EOS. Further research is required to determine the best way to systematize serial examinations of NB's and which symptoms would be the best predictors of EOS.
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.