ArticleInfection2026
A retrospective study of alternative antibiotics for prophylaxis of the Group B Streptococcus maternal-fetal disease.
Article in Infection, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin prophylactic regimen versus standard penicillin treatment in pregnant women colonized with GBS(Group B Streptococcus), and further analyzed the timing of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.
methodWe retrospectively analyzed the singleton pregnant women with GBS colonization at 35-37 weeks of gestation in Shenzhen Baoan Women's and Children's Hospital between September 2018 and January 2024. 2653 pregnant women received standardized penicillin prophylaxis and 2418 pregnant women received alternative cefazolin prophylaxis in labor. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two different intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) groups.
resultsNo significant differences were found in postpartum hemorrhage, amniotic fluid fecal contamination, delivery assistance, neonatal sepsis, neonatal asphyxia and Apgar score between Penicillin group and Cefazolin group (P > 0.05). In terms of chorioamnionitis, neonatal pneumonia, cesarean section, neonatal jaundice and NICU admission, the cefazolin group showed significantly lower rates than that of penicillin group(P < 0.05). The incidence of chorioamnionitis, transfer to cesarean section and NICU admission in both penicillin and cefazolin IAP subgroup of more than 4 h were lower than that of less than or equal 4 h, however with no significantly difference when using cefazolin about chorioamnionitis.
conclusionOur study shows that cefazolin is effective and safe as penicillin in preventing maternal-fetal GBS infection and may be used as an alternative antibiotics. In addition, it is supposed that IAP should be administered during labor for at least 4h prior to delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42690541What 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.