MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153617354 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2021-rcpch.212

389 Contemporary trends in global mortality of neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3153617354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wen Li Lee, Ming Ying Gan, Bei Jun Yap, Tammie Seethor, Bobby Tan, Shu‐Ling Chong

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSepsisObservational studyRandomized controlled trialNeonatal sepsisPediatricsMeta-analysisCase fatality rateSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryMEDLINEInternal medicineEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Sepsis causes death and morbidity in young infants. Globally, an estimated 1.3 – 3.9 million young infants experience sepsis and 400,000 – 700,000 die from sepsis-related conditions annually. Even though there have been significant progress over the past twenty years in reducing young infant mortality, sepsis currently accounts for up to 15% of all young infant deaths. A thorough understanding of young infant sepsis can inform strategies that span prevention, diagnosis and intervention for young infant sepsis. <h3>Objectives</h3> We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the case fatality rates (CFRs) among young infants less than 90 days with sepsis globally. <h3>Methods</h3> We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2009 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase and Web of Science for randomized clinical trials and observational studies in English language, published between 2010 to 2019. Studies involving young infants less than 90 days old with sepsis and reported CFRs were included. We obtained pooled CFRs estimates using the random effects model. Additional stratifications by gestation, birth weight, onset of sepsis (early onset was defined as &lt;72 hours), source of sepsis and gross national income were also performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for all observational studies. <h3>Results</h3> Among 6314 articles screened, 240 studies with a total of 437,796 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. 99 came from high income countries, 44 from upper middle income countries, 82 from lower middle income countries, 6 from low income countries and 9 were conducted in multiple countries. Overall, the pooled CFR was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.17–0.19). The CFR was the highest in low income countries (0.25 [95% CI, 0.07–0.43]), followed by lower middle (0.24 [95% CI, 0.21–0.26]), upper middle (0.21 [95% CI, 0.18–0.24]) and lastly high income countries (0.12 [95% CI, 0.11–0.13]). Other factors associated with higher CFRs included prematurity (0.23 [95% CI, 0.19–0.26] vs term CFR 0.10 [95% CI, 0.08–0.13]), low birth weight (0.21 [95% CI, 0.19–0.24] vs normal birth weight 0.19 [95% CI, 0.18–0.20]), early onset sepsis (0.20 [95% CI, 0.17–0.24] vs combined (0.16 [95% CI, 0.14–0.18]) and hospital acquired infection (0.23 [95% CI, 0.17–0.30] vs community acquired infections 0.21 [95% CI, 0.10–0.33]). Time trend analysis showed higher CFRs in the low income countries than the middle and high income countries. A decreasing trend in CFRs over time was observed in high and upper middle income countries, as compared to an increasing trend in lower middle and low income countries. <h3>Conclusions</h3> While we saw a declining trend of young infant sepsis CFRs among high and upper middle income countries across the years, the increasing trend amongst lower middle and low income countries highlights a disparity in infant sepsis outcomes based on resource availability. We highlight specific vulnerable patient populations that should be further studied in order to reduce the global burden of young infant sepsis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbstractsSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207