CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk factors of neonatal sepsis in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Murthy, Shruti, Godinho, Myron Anthony, Guddattu, Vasudeva, Lewis, Leslie Edward Simon, Nair, N. Sreekumaran·2019·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0215683PMC PMC6483350
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0215683

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 A PRISMA chart outlining the study selection results in our review.
Fig 1 A PRISMA chart outlining the study selection results in our review.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of male neonates with and without sepsis.
Fig 2 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of male neonates with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of outborn neonates with and without sepsis.
Fig 3 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of outborn neonates with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of low birth weight neonates with and without sepsis.
Fig 4 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of low birth weight neonates with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 5 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of standardized mean difference of birth weight of neonates with and without sepsis.
Fig 5 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of standardized mean difference of birth weight of neonates with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 6 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates resuscitated at birth, with and without sepsis.
Fig 6 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates resuscitated at birth, with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 7 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates requiring artificial ventilation, with and without sepsis.
Fig 7 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates requiring artificial ventilation, with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 8 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers who delivered at <37 weeks of gestation.
Fig 8 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers who delivered at <37 weeks of gestation.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 9 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of gestational age of mothers of neonates with and without sepsis.
Fig 9 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of gestational age of mothers of neonates with and without sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 10 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers who had vaginal delivery.
Fig 10 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers who had vaginal delivery.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 11 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers with premature rupture of membranes.
Fig 11 Forest plot showing a random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers with premature rupture of membranes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 12 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis for male neonates with and without sepsis sub-grouped by sepsis diagnostic criteria (9 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 12 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis for male neonates with and without sepsis sub-grouped by sepsis diagnostic criteria (9 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 13 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis for low birth weight (< 2500 grams) neonates with and without sepsis, sub-grouped by study design (4 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 13 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis for low birth weight (< 2500 grams) neonates with and without sepsis, sub-grouped by study design (4 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 14 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers delivering <37 weeks of gestation, sub-grouped by study design (6 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 14 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers delivering <37 weeks of gestation, sub-grouped by study design (6 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 15 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of male neonates, with and without sepsis, sub-grouped by study quality (9 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 15 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of male neonates, with and without sepsis, sub-grouped by study quality (9 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 16 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis for low birth weight (< 2500 grams) neonates with and without sepsis, sub-grouped by study quality (4 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 16 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis for low birth weight (< 2500 grams) neonates with and without sepsis, sub-grouped by study quality (4 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 17 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers delivering <37 weeks of gestation, sub-grouped by study quality (7 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 17 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers delivering <37 weeks of gestation, sub-grouped by study quality (7 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 18 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers who delivered vaginally, sub-grouped by study quality (4 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].
Fig 18 Forest plot showing random-effects meta-analysis of neonates, with and without sepsis, born to mothers who delivered vaginally, sub-grouped by study quality (4 studies) [IV: Inverse Variance; CI: Confidence Interval].CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 19 Funnel plot illustrating publication bias assessment of male gender as a risk factor of neonatal sepsis.
Fig 19 Funnel plot illustrating publication bias assessment of male gender as a risk factor of neonatal sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 20 Funnel plot illustrating publication bias assessment for delivery <37 weeks of gestation as risk factor for neonatal sepsis.
Fig 20 Funnel plot illustrating publication bias assessment for delivery <37 weeks of gestation as risk factor for neonatal sepsis.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. I Abubakar, 2015, Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013, Lancet, 385, 117, 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2 · DOI · Paper page
  2. C Fleischmann-Struzek, 2018, The global burden of paediatric and neonatal sepsis: a systematic review, Lancet Respir Med, 6, 223, 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30063-8 · DOI · Paper page
  3. V Bangi, 2014, Neonatal sepsis: A risk approach, J Dr NTR University Health Sci, 3, 254, 10.4103/2277-8632.146632 · DOI
  4. R. Kartik, 2006, Evaluation of screening of neonatal sepsis, Int J Contemp Pediatrics, 5, 580
  5. SM Gordon, 2017, Neonatal meningitis: overcoming challenges in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment with omics, Front Pediatr, 5, 139, 10.3389/fped.2017.00139 · DOI
  6. 2017, The global maternal and neonatal sepsis initiative: a call for collaboration and action by 2030., Lancet Glob Health, 5, e390, 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30020-7 · DOI
  7. R Aggarwal, 2001, Sepsis in the newborn, Indian J Pediatr, 68, 1143, 10.1007/BF02722932 · DOI
  8. LJ Schlapbach, 2018, Defining pediatric sepsis, JAMA Pediatr, 172, 312, 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5208 · DOI
  9. JL Wynn, 2016, Defining neonatal sepsis, Curr Opin Pediatr, 28, 135, 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000315 · DOI
  10. A Zea-Vera, 2015, Challenges in the diagnosis and management of neonatal sepsis, J Trop Pediatr, 61, 1, 10.1093/tropej/fmu079 · DOI
  11. WE Benitz, 2015, Reappraisal of guidelines for management of neonates with suspected early-onset sepsis, J Pediatr, 166, 1070, 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.12.023 · DOI
  12. VV Tewari, 2014, Monotherapy with amikacin or piperacillin-tazobactum empirically in neonates at risk for early-onset sepsis: a randomized controlled trial., J Trop Pediatr, 60, 297, 10.1093/tropej/fmu017 · DOI
  13. AL Shane, 2017, Neonatal sepsis, Lancet, 390, P1770, 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31002-4 · DOI · Paper page
  14. R Hughes, 2017, Stenson B on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Prevention of early-onset neonatal Group B Streptococcal disease, Green-top Guideline No. 36. BJOG, 124, e280
  15. AR Bedford Russell, 2015, Early onset neonatal sepsis: diagnostic dilemmas and practical management, Arch Dis Child-Fetal Neonatal Ed., 100, F350, 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306193 · DOI
  16. TB Newman, 2010, Interpreting complete blood counts soon after birth in newborns at risk for sepsis, Pediatrics, 126, 903, 10.1542/peds.2010-0935 · DOI
  17. L Srinivasan, 2017, Systematic review and meta-analysis: gene association studies in neonatal sepsis, Am J Perinatol, 34, 684
  18. B Tan, 2014, Risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in the neonatal intensive care unit: a meta-analysis of observational studies, Eur J Pediatr, 173, 427, 10.1007/s00431-014-2278-6 · DOI
  19. JS Furyk, 2011, Systematic review: neonatal meningitis in the developing world, Trop Med Int Health, 16, 672, 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02750.x · DOI
  20. WE Benitz, 1999, Risk factors for early-onset Group B Streptococcal sepsis: estimation of odds ratios by critical literature review, Pediatrics, 103, e77, 10.1542/peds.103.6.e77 · DOI
  21. NJ Russell, 2017, Risk of early-onset neonatal Group B Streptococcal disease with maternal colonization worldwide: systematic review and meta-analyses, Clin Infect Dis, 65, S152, 10.1093/cid/cix655 · DOI
  22. VV Tewari, 2016, Current evidence on prevention and management of early onset neonatal sepsis, J Infect Dis Ther, 4, 277
  23. MJ Sankar, 2008, Sepsis in the newborn, Ind J Pediatr, 75, 261, 10.1007/s12098-008-0056-z · DOI
  24. D Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, BMJ, 339
  25. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). Antibiotics for early-onset neonatal infection: antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of early-onset neonatal infection. London: RCOG Press; 2012. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 149.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK116610/.
  26. T. Duke, 2005, Neonatal pneumonia in developing countries, Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 90, F211, 10.1136/adc.2003.048108 · DOI
  27. S. Chinn, 2000, A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta‐analysis, Stat Med, 19, 3127, 10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::AID-SIM784>3.0.CO;2-M · DOI · Paper page
  28. JPT Higgins, 2003, Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, BMJ, 327, 557, 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  29. R DerSimonian, 1986, Meta-analysis in clinical trials, Control Clin Trials, 7, 177, 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · DOI · Paper page
  30. M Sonego, 2015, Risk factors for mortality from acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children under five years of age in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, PloS ONE, 10, e0116380, 10.1371/journal.pone.0116380 · DOI
  31. D Chaurasia, 2015, Changing pattern of neonatal fungal sepsis: a matched case–control study, Natl J Med Allied Sci, 4, 3
  32. 2016, Characterisation and antimicrobial resistance of sepsis pathogens in neonates born in tertiary care centres in Delhi, India: a cohort study, Lancet Glob Health, 4, PE752, 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30148-6 · DOI
  33. S Santhanam, 2017, Perinatal risk factors for neonatal early-onset Group B Streptococcal sepsis after initiation of risk-based maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis-a case control study, J Trop Pediatr, 64, 312, 10.1093/tropej/fmx068 · DOI
  34. S Tripathi, 2010, Study of ventilator associated pneumonia in neonatal intensive care unit: characteristics, risk factors and outcome, Internet J Med Update, 5, 12
  35. R Tapader, 2014, The high prevalence of serine protease autotransporters of Enterobacteriaceae (SPATEs) in Escherichia coli causing neonatal septicemia, Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 33, 2015, 10.1007/s10096-014-2161-4 · DOI
  36. N Vijayakanthi, 2015, Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) in neonatal intensive care unit—an emerging problem, Indian J Pediatr, 82, 96, 10.1007/s12098-014-1561-x · DOI
  37. S Dutta, 2010, Intrapartum antibiotics and risk factors for early onset sepsis, Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 95, F99, 10.1136/adc.2009.163220 · DOI
  38. A Bhakri, 2017, A study of platelet indices in neonatal sepsis from a rural tertiary care hospital of north India, J Med Sci Clin Res, 5, 30616, 10.18535/jmscr/v5i11.138 · DOI
  39. B Das, 2016, Genotyping of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms using mismatched amplification mutation assay in neonatal sepsis patients of Odisha, eastern India, Infect Genet Evol, 45, 40, 10.1016/j.meegid.2016.08.013 · DOI
  40. R Pradhan, 2016, Ratio of neutrophilic CD64 and monocytic HLA-DR: A novel parameter in diagnosis and prognostication of neonatal sepsis, Cytometry B Clin Cytom, 90, 295, 10.1002/cyto.b.21244 · DOI
  41. S Soni, 2013, Evaluation of CD64 expression on neutrophils as an early indicator of neonatal sepsis, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 32, e33, 10.1097/INF.0b013e31826faede · DOI
  42. P Verma, 2015, Neonatal sepsis: epidemiology, clinical spectrum, recent antimicrobial agents and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern., I Int J Contemp Pediatr, 176, 10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20150523 · DOI
  43. A Bhargava, 2017, Risk factors and outcome analysis of gram-positive and gram-negative neonatal sepsis: a case-control study, Can J Inf Control, 32, 98
  44. A Prashant, 2013, Comparative assessment of cytokines and other inflammatory markers for the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis-a case control study, PLoS ONE, 8, e68426, 10.1371/journal.pone.0068426 · DOI
  45. V Sundaram, 2009, Blood culture confirmed bacterial sepsis in neonates in a North Indian tertiary care center: changes over the last decade, Jpn J Infect Dis, 62, 46, 10.7883/yoken.JJID.2009.46 · DOI
  46. JL Wynn, 2014, Time for a neonatal–specific consensus definition for sepsis, Pediatr Crit Care Med, 15, 523, 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000157 · DOI
  47. R Basmaci, 2018, Management of children with multidrug-resistant sepsis in low-income and middle-income countries, Lancet Child Adolesc Health, 2, 8, 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30153-0 · DOI
  48. EJA Fitchett, 2016, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Newborn Infection (STROBE-NI): an extension of the STROBE statement for neonatal infection research, Lancet Infect Dis, 16, e202, 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30082-2 · DOI
  49. F Cortese, 2016, Early and late infections in newborns: where do we stand? A review, Pediatr Neonat, 57, 265, 10.1016/j.pedneo.2015.09.007 · DOI
  50. S Kirchengast, 2009, The male disadvantage hypothesis reconsidered: is there really a weaker sex? An analysis of gender differences in newborn somatometrics and vital parameters, J Life Sci, 1, 63, 10.1080/09751270.2009.11885136 · DOI
  51. P Roy, 2014, Gender differences in outcomes of low birth weight and preterm neonates: the male disadvantage, J Trop Pediatr, 60, 480, 10.1093/tropej/fmu042 · DOI
  52. M Satar, 2012, Neonatal sepsis: a continuing disease burden, Turk J Pediatr, 54, 449
  53. E Elsmén, 2004, Preterm male infants need more initial respiratory and circulatory support than female infants, Acta Paediatr, 93, 529, 10.1080/08035250410024998 · DOI
  54. D Waters, 2011, Aetiology of community-acquired neonatal sepsis in low and middle income countries, J Glob Health, 1, 154
  55. P Panigrahi, 2017, Neonatal sepsis in rural India: timing, microbiology and antibiotic resistance in a population-based prospective study in the community setting, J Perinatol, 37, 911, 10.1038/jp.2017.67 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Murthy, S., Godinho, M. A., Guddattu, V., Lewis, L. E. S., & Nair, N. S.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2019-04-25
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
e0215683
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0215683
PMC
PMC6483350
Cited by
140
References
5
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
International Society for Infectious Diseases (2017 ISID Research Grant)

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