MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399722571 · doi:10.1101/2024.06.17.24309017

Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent Group B streptococcal infections in newborn infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing various strategies

2024· review· en· W4399722571 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. R. Panneflek, Gea F. Hasperhoven, Yamikani Chimwaza, Connor Allen, Tina Lavin, Arjan B. te Pas, Vincent Bekker, Thomas van den Akker

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsAthena Sustainable Materials Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibiotic prophylaxisMedicineMeta-analysisAntibioticsGroup BIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewPediatricsMEDLINEInternal medicineMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Background Early-onset Group B Streptococcus (EOGBS) leads to substantial morbidity and mortality in newborn infants. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) prevents EOGBS infection, but IAP strategies vary. The approach to the provision of IAP can be risk-based, universal or a combination of the two strategies. Previous systematic reviews reported that universal strategies might be most optimal in lowering EOGBS infection, but there is no consensus. Therefore, we aimed to provide up-to-date evidence on effectiveness of different strategies by comparing perinatal outcomes. Methods A systematic search for EOGBS prevention strategies was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. Studies were included if they reported on different strategies and outcomes of interest, including EOGBS infection, IAP administration and antimicrobial resistance. Summary data was extracted from published reports. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to determine risk ratios (RR) and 95%-confidence intervals. PROSPERO registration CRD42023411806. Findings A total of 6050 records were identified, of which 72 observational studies were included for synthesis with more than 10 million live births. Meta-analysis demonstrated that implementation of any strategy (n=34 studies, RR 0.46 (0.36-0.60)), risk-based strategies (n=11 studies, RR 0.65 (0.48-0.87)), or universal strategies (n=16 studies, RR 0.37 (0.25-0.55)) was associated with a reduced risk of EOGBS infection compared to no strategy. In direct comparison, universal strategies were associated with a reduced risk of EOGBS compared to a risk-based strategy (n=17 studies, RR 0.41 (0.30-0.55)), while the proportion of women receiving IAP did not differ between risk-based (16%) and universal (21%) strategies (n=9 studies, RR 1.29 (0.95-1.75)). There was no antimicrobial resistance of EOGBS isolates to penicillin or ampicillin (n=11 studies). Interpretation Any IAP strategy could reduce the risk of EOGBS infection without evidence of increasing antimicrobial resistance. Universal strategies give the largest reduction in the EOGBS burden, while not exposing a significantly higher proportion of pregnancies to IAP compared to risk-based strategies. Funding UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organisation.

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: Systematic review · 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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207