ReviewOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2025
Screening of Group B
Review in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Rapid Molecular Detection Method for Streptococcus agalactiae Based on Bacteriophage Lysin Lysis and Real-Time PCR.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Culture-Based Cervicovaginal Findings andMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Group B Streptococcus colonization, antibiotic resistance, and maternal-neonatal outcomes in late pregnancy: a retrospective study from 2017 to 2024.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of bacterial isolates from vaginal discharge specimens among hospitalized patients in a tertiary maternal and child healthcare hospital in Shenzhen, China.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Group B Methods: A systematic review was performed to investigate risks, types of specimens, sampling methods, media for GBS recovery, identification tests, gestation week for testing, GBS prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, turnover time for cultures, antigen, and molecular-based tests. A literature search was conducted through the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Results: A total of 20 studies were identified with 10,288 patients and 1,334 GBS positive (13%). Eight studies were performed in adequate gestation week and revealed prevalence from 0.2 to 20.8% (conventional tests) and 37 to 45% (molecular tests). In only three studies, vaginal/rectal swab recommended by guidelines was applied. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of the detection and identification of GBS reduces the scientific and clinical utility of laboratory-based data, and universal antepartum screening with affordable, high-sensitivity traditional tests is needed.
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.