The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Neonatal infections in England: the NeonIN surveillance network
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Neonatal infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Neonatal infection surveillance networks are necessary for defining the epidemiology of infections and monitoring changes over time. Design: Prospective multicentre surveillance using a web-based database. Setting: 12 English neonatal units. Participants: Newborns admitted in 2006–2008, with positive blood, cerebrospinal fluid or urine culture and treated with antibiotics for at least 5 days. Outcome measure: Incidence, age at infection, pathogens and antibiotic resistance profiles. Results: With the inclusion of coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS), the incidence of all neonatal infection was 8/1000 live births and 71/1000 neonatal admissions (2007–2008). The majority of infections occurred in premature (<37 weeks) and low birthweight (<2500 g) infants (82% and 81%, respectively). The incidence of early onset sepsis (EOS; ≤48 h of age) was 0.9/1000 live births and 9/1000 neonatal admissions, and group B Streptococcus (58%) and Escherichia coli (18%) were the most common organisms. The incidence of late onset sepsis (LOS; >48 h of age) was 3/1000 live births and 29/1000 neonatal admissions (7/1000 live births and 61/1000 admissions including CoNS) and the most common organisms were CoNS (54%), Enterobacteriaceae (21%) and Staphylococcus aureus (18%, 11% of which were methicillin resistant S aureus). Fungi accounted for 9% of LOS (72% Candida albicans). The majority of pathogens causing EOS (95%) and LOS (84%) were susceptible to commonly used empiric first line antibiotic combinations of penicillin/gentamicin and flucloxacillin/gentamicin, respectively (excluding CoNS). Conclusions: The authors have established NeonIN in England and defined the current epidemiology of neonatal infections. These data can be used for benchmarking among units, international comparisons and as a platform for interventional studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Edmond, K. M., Kortsalioudaki, C., Scott, S., Schrag, S. J., Zaidi, A. K., Cousens, S., & Heath, P. T. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61651-6 · Cited by 600
Self-citationNeonatal sepsis in South Asia: huge burden and spiralling antimicrobial resistance
Chaurasia, S., Sivanandan, S., Agarwal, R., Ellis, S., Sharland, M., & Sankar, M. J. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k5314 · Cited by 258
Shaw, A. G., Sim, K., Randell, P., Cox, M. J., McClure, Z. E., Li, M.-S., Donaldson, H., Langford, P. R., Cookson, W. O. C. M., Moffatt, M. F., et al. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132923 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Vergnano, S., Menson, E., Kennea, N., Embleton, N., Russell, A. B., Watts, T., Robinson, M. J., Collinson, A., & Heath, P. T.
- Venue
- Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2010-09-27
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- F9-F14
- ISSN
- 1359-2998 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2052
- OpenAlex
- W2160948622
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.94
- 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: Neonatal infections in England: the NeonIN surveillance network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/adc.2009.178798
- The paper
- Vergnano, S., Menson, E., Kennea, N., Embleton, N., Russell, A. B., Watts, T., Robinson, M. J., Collinson, A., & Heath, P. T. (2011). Neonatal infections in England: the NeonIN surveillance network. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.178798
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.