ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Current antibiotic and prophylactic antifungal drug policies in UK neonatal intensive care units: a national survey.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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.
- Antimicrobial stewardship in UK special care baby units: gaps in research and future directions.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
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
Objectives: To survey the current antibiotic and antifungal drug practices of UK neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), and to identify antibiotic preferences and policies for treatment of early- and late-onset sepsis (EoS and LoS), meningitis, and antifungal prophylaxis. Methods: Between January and May 2024, we contacted all 53 tertiary-level UK NICUs via telephone and/or e-mail. We requested a copy of each unit's guidelines for antibiotic treatment of EoS and LoS, and antifungal prophylaxis. Results: We obtained guidelines from 53/53 (100%) units. A penicillin and aminoglycoside combination was the consistent first-line recommendation for EoS in 51/53 (96%) units. Only a minority (11/53; 21%) units specified any second-line antibiotic regimen for EoS, though most (44/53; 83%) specifically recommended amoxicillin for suspected listeriosis. For LoS, almost all NICUs (52/53; 98%) provided specific guidance on empirical first-line antibiotic treatment, with empirical narrow-spectrum antibiotics as first-line LoS treatment for term neonates in 42/53 (79%) NICUs and for preterm neonates in 41/53 (77%) NICUs. Fifty-four percent (29/53) of units included specific LoS recommendations for neonates with indwelling central venous catheters. Sixty-six percent (35/53) of NICUs included cefotaxime in their empirical meningitis regimens. Eighty-five percent (45/53) of units had clear guidelines for antifungal prophylaxis. Conclusions: While EoS treatment was consistent across units, there remained wide variation in antibiotic regimens used for LoS and meningitis, and for neonates with indwelling central venous catheters. Guidelines specific to preterm neonates were limited. The practice of routine antifungal prophylaxis has been more prevalent since the last UK survey in 2006-07 but is still neither universal nor consistent.
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.