ArticleHealth science reports2026
Neonatal Bloodstream Infections: A Narrative Review on Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges and Prospects in Developing Countries.
Article in Health science reports, 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.
- Neonatal Bloodstream Infections: A Narrative Review on Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges and Prospects in Developing Countries.Health science reports · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Background: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) pose a significant global health challenge, particularly in developing countries. Neonates are highly vulnerable due to underdeveloped immune systems and immature physical barriers, a risk amplified by poor hygiene and limited healthcare access in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), leading to an estimated incidence of 5.5 cases per 1000 live births. This review aims to provide insight into the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of neonatal BSIs in developing countries and to identify prospects for improving their diagnosis and treatment. Methods: This review employed a nonsystematic narrative approach. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. The search prioritized peer-reviewed articles, clinical trials, and systematic reviews published within the past decade (2015-2025). Results: Diagnosis is severely hampered by nonspecific symptoms and limitations of conventional methods like blood culture, especially in resource-constrained settings lacking advanced molecular diagnostics. This often necessitates empirical antibiotic treatment, which intensifies antimicrobial resistance (AMR), complicates therapy, and leads to adverse outcomes. Promising solutions include rapid diagnostic technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), clinical decision support systems (CDSS), novel antimicrobial agents, alternative therapies like maternal immunization, and robust public health strategies, such as antimicrobial stewardship and stringent infection prevention. Conclusion: Addressing this complex issue requires concerted global efforts, substantial investment in local laboratory infrastructure, enhanced healthcare provider training, and the development of context-appropriate, affordable solutions to improve neonatal outcomes in LMICs.
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.