Neonatal sepsis: a systematic review of core outcomes from randomised clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lack of a consensus definition of neonatal sepsis and a core outcome set (COS) proves a substantial impediment to research that influences policy and practice relevant to key stakeholders, patients and parents. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In the included studies, the described outcomes were extracted in accordance with the provisions of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) handbook and registered. RESULTS: Among 884 abstracts identified, 90 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. Only 30 manuscripts explicitly stated the primary and/or secondary outcomes. A total of 88 distinct outcomes were recorded across all 90 studies included. These were then assigned to seven different domains in line with the taxonomy for classification proposed by the COMET initiative. The most frequently reported outcome was survival with 74% (n = 67) of the studies reporting an outcome within this domain. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review constitutes one of the initial phases in the protocol for developing a COS in neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting in neonatal sepsis hinders comparison and synthesis of data. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to generate a COS in neonatal sepsis by consensus recommendation. IMPACT: This systematic review identified a wide variation of outcomes reported among published RCTs on the management of neonatal sepsis. The paucity of standardised outcome reporting hinders comparison and synthesis of data and future meta-analyses with conclusive recommendations on the management of neonatal sepsis are unlikely. The final phase will involve a Delphi Survey to determine a COS by consensus recommendation with input from all relevant stakeholders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.110 | 0.334 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".