Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 617

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Population-Based Comparison of Strategies to Prevent Early-Onset Group B Streptococcal Disease in Neonates

Open access
Schrag, Stephanie J., Zell, Elizabeth R., Lynfield, Ruth, Roome, Aaron, Arnold, Kathryn E., Craig, Allen S., Harrison, Lee H., Reingold, Arthur, Stefonek, Karen, Smith, Glenda, Gamble, Melanie, Schuchat, Anne·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Guidelines issued in 1996 in the United States recommend either screening of pregnant women for group B streptococcal colonization by means of cultures (screening approach) or assessing clinical risk factors (risk-based approach) to identify candidates for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: In a multistate retrospective cohort study, we compared the effectiveness of the screening and risk-based approaches in preventing early-onset group B streptococcal disease (in infants less than seven days old). We studied a stratified random sample of the 629,912 live births in 1998 and 1999 in eight geographical areas where there was active surveillance for group B streptococcal infection, including all births in which the neonate had early-onset disease. Women with no documented culture for group B streptococcus were considered to have been cared for according to the risk-based approach. RESULTS: We studied 5144 births, including 312 in which the newborn had early-onset group B streptococcal disease. Antenatal screening was documented for 52 percent of the mothers. The risk of early-onset disease was significantly lower among the infants of screened women than among those in the risk-based group (adjusted relative risk, 0.46; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.60). Because women whose providers had no strategy for prophylaxis may have been misclassified in the risk-based group, we excluded all women with risk factors and adequate time for prophylaxis who did not receive antibiotics. The adjusted relative risk of early-onset disease associated with the screening approach in this secondary analysis was similar--0.48 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.37 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Routine screening for group B streptococcus during pregnancy prevents more cases of early-onset disease than the risk-based approach. Recommendations that endorse both strategies as equivalent warrant reconsideration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa020205

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 617

Metadata

Authors
Schrag, S. J., Zell, E. R., Lynfield, R., Roome, A., Arnold, K. E., Craig, A. S., Harrison, L. H., Reingold, A., Stefonek, K., Smith, G., Gamble, M., & Schuchat, A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-07-25
Volume
347
Issue
4
Pages
233-239
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1999988612
Cited by
617
References
0
FWCI
35.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Population-Based Comparison of Strategies to Prevent Early-Onset Group B Streptococcal Disease in Neonates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa020205
The paper
Schrag, S. J., Zell, E. R., Lynfield, R., Roome, A., Arnold, K. E., Craig, A. S., Harrison, L. H., Reingold, A., Stefonek, K., Smith, G., Gamble, M., & Schuchat, A. (2002). A Population-Based Comparison of Strategies to Prevent Early-Onset Group B Streptococcal Disease in Neonates. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa020205

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.