Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42060466›Full record

ReviewActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2026

Benefits and Harms of Antenatal/Intrapartum Screening for Maternal Group B Streptococcus and Use of Intrapartum Antibiotic Prophylaxis Versus Risk-Based Protocols or No Intervention: A Rapid Review.

Pauline Campbell, Cathryn Broderick, Candida Fenton, Bridget Davis, Wei Xu, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Narendra Aladangady, Richard F Chin, Rosie Hill, Ryan Kean and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Pauline CampbellResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Department of Nursing, Community and Public Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5879-5526
Cathryn BroderickNESSIE-NIHR Evidence Synthesis Scotland InitiativE, Usher Institute, Usher Building, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2891-1394
Candida FentonNESSIE-NIHR Evidence Synthesis Scotland InitiativE, Usher Institute, Usher Building, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Bridget DavisResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Department of Nursing, Community and Public Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.
Wei XuNESSIE-NIHR Evidence Synthesis Scotland InitiativE, Usher Institute, Usher Building, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Alex Todhunter-BrownResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Department of Nursing, Community and Public Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4941-7985
Narendra AladangadyHomerton University Hospital, London, England.
Richard F ChinThe Muir Maxwell Epilepsy Centre, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Rosie HillNESSIE-NIHR Evidence Synthesis Scotland InitiativE, Usher Institute, Usher Building, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Ryan KeanDepartment of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.
Charlotte-Eve ShortDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, England.
Julie CowieYunus Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.
NESSIE—NIHR Evidence Synthesis Scotland InitiativE

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR153425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo synthesise evidence on the effectiveness, harms and benefits of different approaches to prevent early-onset Group B Streptococcus (EOGBS) and identify gaps in short and longer-term outcomes.

methodsA two-phase rapid review. Phase 1 included an overview of systematic reviews (SRs). Phase 2 identified primary studies from SRs supplemented by additional searches. Outcomes included screening effectiveness, maternal and neonatal health outcomes and reported harms or benefits.

resultsPhase 1 identified three moderate-high quality reviews; 78 primary studies met phase 2 eligibility criteria. Any prevention strategy reduced EOGBS incidence, all-cause early-onset sepsis (EOS) and EOGBS-related mortality compared to no strategy. Universal screening was more effective in reducing EOGBS and all-cause EOS compared with risk-based approaches, with no evidence of any difference between the approaches for non-GBS EOS incidence or EOGBS-related mortality. Evidence was low to very-low certainty. Other neonatal outcomes (meningitis, pneumonia, late-onset GBS or maternal outcomes) were limited. Long-term child outcomes were under-reported. Few studies reported women's views. Protocol violations and missed opportunities were reported.

conclusionAny prevention strategy reduces the incidence of EOGBS, all-cause EOS and EOGBS-related mortality compared to no strategy. Differences between universal and risk-based approaches remain unclear. Improved reporting, longer-term evaluation and implementation-focused research are needed.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrenatal DiagnosisStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcus agalactiaeFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID42060466
PMCPMC13371836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.