ArticlePediatric research2026
Comparing early-onset sepsis risk: risk calculator, American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, and local care.
Article in Pediatric research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly-onset neonatal sepsis (EONS) is a major concern in at-risk term and late preterm infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends categorical risk assessment (CRA), the sepsis risk calculator (SRC), or serial observation. We compared a local protocol initiating antibiotics only with predefined clinical signs together with abnormal interleukin-6 (IL-6) and/or C-reactive protein (CRP) with modeled CRA- and SRC-recommendations.
methodsRetrospective cohort of neonates ≥34 weeks with ≥1 EONS risk factors at Vienna General Hospital (February-July 2024). Infants were managed per local protocol; CRA and SRC were applied retrospectively. Primary outcomes were blood sampling and empiric antibiotics. Given the single culture-positive case, diagnostic performance metrics were treated as exploratory and descriptive.
resultsAmong 184 infants, 43 (23%) had clinical signs and 1 (0.5%) had positive blood-culture. Under the local protocol, 56 (30%) underwent blood sampling, and 25 (14%) received antibiotics. CRA and SRC would have recommended empiric antibiotics for 46 (25%) and 36 (20%) infants, respectively. Thus, the local protocol increased sampling but reduced antibiotic exposure.
conclusionsIn this low-incidence cohort, the local protocol reduced empiric antibiotic exposure compared with CRA and SRC; findings primarily inform specificity/stewardship and do not support conclusions regarding sensitivity or clinical safety. IMPACT: In at-risk neonates ≥34 weeks' gestation, a biomarker-augmented local protocol was associated with lower empiric antibiotic use than AAP categorical risk assessment and the sepsis risk calculator in this low-incidence cohort. This real-world study from a European tertiary center directly compares three endorsed EONS strategies within the same contemporary cohort. Combining structured risk assessment with selective biomarker testing may support antimicrobial stewardship, but the limited specificity of biomarkers at applied thresholds requires careful interpretation alongside the clinical presentation.
Identifiers
42156863What 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.