ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2026
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis is a leading cause of neonatal mortality in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where microbiological diagnostic capacity and antibiotic access are limited. High antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates limit the effectiveness of current treatment guidelines, with concern that available antibiotics are rarely adequate treatment for neonatal sepsis in the region.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was electronically distributed in English, French and Portuguese to neonatal clinicians across SSA between April and June 2025. Questions focused on the management of neonatal sepsis including diagnostic, antibiotic and guideline use. Responses were analysed descriptively and presented as percentages of the total number of responses.
resultsOf 169 responses (40/48 countries; 83.3%) from SSA, 71.6% were senior doctors, 88.8% managed neonatal sepsis at least weekly and 58.0% worked in central healthcare facilities.14.9% (95% CI 10.3% to 21.0%) of respondents never and 28.6% (CI 22.3% to 35.8%) less than half of the time received blood culture results in time to impact patient care. Guidelines were almost universally used (97.6% (CI 94.0% to 99.1%)). The most common guideline for early-onset neonatal sepsis advised amoxicillin/ampicillin plus aminoglycosides (46.4% of responses (CI 39.1% to 54.0%)). 50.3% (CI 42.8% to 57.7%) of respondents had difficulties accessing antibiotics, with carbapenems and piperacillin-tazobactam least accessible. 45.4% (CI 38.0% to 53.1%) had attempted to author local guidelines with insufficient local AMR data (45.6% (CI 35.7% to 55.8%)) the most common barrier to guideline development.
conclusionsThis large survey highlighted widespread challenges in diagnostic and antibiotic access for neonatal sepsis in SSA. We find that clinicians rely on guidelines to guide starting antibiotics and to guide agent choice. Their practices reflect advice in global guidelines. Attempts to author locally applicable guidelines are hindered by insufficient AMR data. These findings strengthen calls to improve microbiological diagnostic access and support data sharing to generate evidence-based, locally appropriate guidelines.
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.