ReviewInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
The association of early antibiotic exposure with subsequent development of late-onset sepsis in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis studies.
Review in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Goldilocks zone of optimal antimicrobial stewardship in preterm infants.Pediatric research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly antibiotic exposure in preterm infants may disrupt gut microbiome development, affecting health. However, its link to late-onset sepsis (LOS) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to clarify the association while addressing confounding bias.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted per PRISMA guidelines, utilized PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for comprehensive literature retrieval. Studies comparing preterm infants with sterile blood cultures who received early antibiotics (short or prolonged) to those without, using LOS as the primary outcome, were included. Comparisons between short- and prolonged-course antibiotics were also considered. Only studies with adjusted analyses for confounders were considered. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were meta-analyzed, and the prediction interval (PI) was calculated using R software.
resultsTen studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising a total sample size of 55,089 preterm infants. Among these, nine studies included 33,549 preterm infants and compared prolonged antibiotic exposure to short exposure. Prolonged exposure was not significantly associated with LOS (pooled aOR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.99-1.46, P = 0.066, PI = 0.66 to 2.19, I² = 67%). Limiting the analysis to five studies with sample sizes over 1,000 reduced heterogeneity (I² = 30%) and provided a more precise confidence interval (pooled aOR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.91-1.15). Four studies, involving 41,938 preterm infants, examined preterm infants exposed to prolonged antibiotics versus those not exposed and found no significant association (aOR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.82-1.02, P = 0.1, PI = 0.72 to 1.16, I² = 0). All four studies had sample sizes exceeding 1,000. Additionally, these studies compared preterm infants with short antibiotic exposure to non-exposure, revealing a slightly lower risk of LOS (aOR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, P = 0.024, I² = 0) and a PI of 0.76 to 1.14.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that prolonged early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants with sterile cultures does not significantly increase the risk of LOS compared to no antibiotic exposure. Interestingly, a shorter duration of antibiotic exposure might be associated with a slightly lower risk of LOS.
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.