ArticleBMC pediatrics2026
Antimicrobials for neonates: evaluation and prescribing practices in Australian neonatal units.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile antimicrobials are frequently prescribed in neonatal units, the way in which these prescriptions start, change and cease has had limited evaluation. This study aimed to provide a detailed description of infection evaluation and treatment practices in Australian neonatal healthcare facilities.
methodsA cross-sectional study of infection evaluations and antimicrobial prescriptions was conducted in three Australian neonatal units. All neonatal inpatients were audited across two five-day data capture periods per unit, with extended data collection for any neonate evaluated or treated for suspected or confirmed infection. This included determination of the reason(s) for commencing antimicrobials, the nature and duration of treatment, evaluation of whether infection had occurred, and identification of alternative diagnoses to infection.
resultsThe study captured 401 patient episodes for 388 patients (1256 patient days). Eighty-three evaluations for potential infection were identified, of which 70 (84%) had a course of antimicrobials prescribed. The antimicrobial use rate was 119 antimicrobial days per 1000 patient days. For 12/70 (17%) antimicrobial courses, a bacterial, fungal or viral infection was detected. Twelve groups of reasons were identified for starting antimicrobial therapy, and neonates with higher care complexity more frequently received antimicrobials. Neonates were evaluated for infection both within neonatal units and prior to arriving in neonatal units. Antimicrobial choice change occurred in 33/70 courses (47%). Antimicrobials with a moderate or high potential for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were prescribed in 30/70 courses (43%), with a practice pattern of adding these agents mid-course. For courses where there was no microbiologically confirmed infection, 42% had an identifiable alternative diagnosis.
conclusionAntimicrobials are prescribed to neonates in varied hospital care contexts, for heterogenous indications, and most often without subsequent microbiological confirmation of infection. Antimicrobials with a propensity for AMR development are commonly prescribed. Renewed and expanded efforts to optimize neonatal antimicrobial prescribing practices are 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.