Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Pediatrics logoLink to Frontiers in Pediatrics
. 2023 Aug 23;11:1206389. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1206389

Risk and diagnostic factors and therapy outcome of neonatal early onset sepsis in ICU patients of Saudi Arabia: a systematic review and meta analysis

Mohammed K Alshammari 1,*,†, Ahlam H Alsanad 2, Rawan J Alnusayri 3, Abdulmajeed S Alanazi 4,†, Fatmah Q Shamakhi 4,†, Khaled M Alshahrani 4,†, Abdullah M Alshahrani 5,†, Ghaliah Yahya 4,†, Abdulaziz A Alshahrani 6,†, Turki S Alshahrani 7,†, Hamad S Sultan 7,†, Fatimah M Alshahrani 8, Fouzyia A Alreshidi 9, Renad A Alnigaidan 10, Abdulaziz A Almazyad 11
PMCID: PMC10482413  PMID: 37681202

Abstract

Background

Neonatal early onset sepsis (NEOS) is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition affecting newborns within the first few days of life. While the diagnosis of NEOS was based on clinical signs and symptoms in the past, recent years have seen growing interest in identifying specific diagnostic factors and optimizing therapy outcomes. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic and risk factors and therapy outcomes of neonatal EOS in ICU patients in Saudi Arabia, with the goal of improving the management of neonatal EOS in the country.

Methods

This method outlines the protocol development, search strategy, study selection, and data collection process for a systematic review on neonatal early onset sepsis in Saudi Arabian ICU patients, following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a well-established guideline that provides a framework for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in a transparent and standardized manner. It aims to improve the quality and reporting of such research by ensuring clear and comprehensive reporting of study methods, results, and interpretations. The search strategy included electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library) and manual search of relevant studies, and data were extracted using a standardized form.

Results

The systematic review included 21 studies on neonatal sepsis in Saudi Arabia, with varying study designs, sample sizes, and prevalence rates of sepsis. Group B streptococcus and E. coli were the most commonly isolated pathogens. Various diagnostic factors and risk factors were reported, including hematological parameters, biomarkers, and blood cultures. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute critical checklist.

Conclusions

The review identified a number of risk and diagnostic factors and therapy outcomes for neonatal sepsis. However, most of the studies were having small scale cohort groups. Further research with controlled study designs is needed to develop effective prevention and management strategies for neonatal sepsis in Saudi Arabia.

Keywords: risk factors, diagnostic factors, therapy outcome, neonatal early onset sepsis, ICU patients, Saudi Arabia

1. Introduction

Neonatal early onset sepsis (NEOS) is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that affects newborns within the first few days of life (1, 2). It is characterized by systemic infection and inflammation, which can lead to septic shock, multiple organ failure, and death if not promptly and effectively treated (3, 4). The pathophysiology predominantly involves ascending colonisation of the uterine cavity and maternal vaginal tract by the typical bacterial flora of the genitourinary and gastrointestinal tracts, which leads to eventual colonisation and infection of the foetus or newborn (5). NEOS is a major health concern worldwide, with an estimated incidence of 0.5–1.5 cases per 1,000 live births in developed countries, and up to 5 cases per 1,000 live births in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (6, 7). In 3%–4% of newborns who have NEOS, there may be serious systemic disease and even deaths are possible outcomes (8, 9).

In the past, the diagnosis of NEOS was based on clinical signs and symptoms, such as fever, lethargy, poor feeding, and respiratory distress, and was often treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics (1, 10, 11). However, this approach led to overuse of antibiotics, increased healthcare costs, and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (12). In recent years, there has been growing interest in identifying specific diagnostic factors that can accurately predict the presence or absence of NEOS, and in optimizing therapy outcomes through targeted antibiotic therapy and supportive measures (13, 14). The risk factors for NEOS include maternal factors such as maternal fever, chorioamnionitis, and prolonged rupture of membranes, as well as neonatal factors such as low birth weight, prematurity, and invasive procedures (2, 4, 15–17). In addition, laboratory parameters such as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, low platelet count, and abnormal white blood cell (WBC) count have been shown to be useful in predicting the presence of NEOS (13, 14).

Despite the availability of diagnostic tools and risk stratification algorithms, the management of neonatal EOS remains challenging, particularly in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients (18). Guidelines for the prevention of NEOS are provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and provide algorithms for the diagnosis and management of high risk NEOS patients (19, 20). These recommendations are based on epidemiological data collected prior to the widespread use of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis in obstetrics, when NEOS incidence was 5–10-fold greater than presently found (21–23). These recommendations lead to a significant number (15%–20%) of term and late preterm babies being examined for sepsis and getting 5%–8% of empirical antibiotics (24). The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy, the choice of antibiotics, and the use of adjunctive therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) remain topics of debate (25, 26).

Saudi Arabia is a high-income country with a well-established healthcare system, including specialized NICUs. However, the incidence and outcomes of neonatal EOS in Saudi Arabia, along with other Gulf countries, remain insufficiently characterized (27, 28). Nevertheless, NEOS is a major health concern in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Saudi Arabia. Identifying diagnostic factors and optimizing therapy outcomes are crucial for the management of EOS in these patients. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic factors and therapy outcomes of neonatal EOS in ICU patients in Saudi Arabia. The study explores the clinical presentation of EOS, laboratory parameters, and risk factors associated with the development of EOS. The findings of this study will contribute to improving the management of neonatal EOS in Saudi Arabia and provide insight into optimizing therapy outcomes for this vulnerable patient population.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Protocol development

The methodology for this study on followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines to ensure transparent reporting and reduce bias in the study. PRISMA is a well-established guideline that provides a framework for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in a transparent and standardized manner. It aims to improve the quality and reporting of such research by ensuring clear and comprehensive reporting of study methods, results, and interpretations. The study protocol was developed before the commencement of the study, outlining the research question, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection and analysis methods, and ethical considerations.

2.2. Search strategy

A comprehensive search of electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies relevant to the research question. The search included keywords such as “neonatal sepsis,” “early onset sepsis,” “ICU patients,” “diagnostic factors,” “risk factors,” and “therapy outcomes.” The search strategy also include MeSH terms and keywords related to neonatal EOS, ICU patients, and Saudi Arabia. A manual search of the reference lists of relevant studies was also performed. The search strategy was designed by two authors who are expert in this field and reviewed by another research team among co-authors. The details are given in Supplementary Table S1 as supplementary file.

2.3. Study selection

Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies to determine their eligibility for inclusion. The full texts of potentially relevant studies were assessed for eligibility based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies that meet the following criteria were included in the study: (1) conducted in Saudi Arabia, (2) neonates diagnosed with early onset sepsis, (3) admitted to ICU, (4) diagnostic and risk factors and therapy outcomes reported, and (5) observational or interventional studies. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus.

2.4. Data collection

Data were extracted from the eligible studies using a standardized data extraction form. The data in Table 1 included information on author and year, location, study period and settings, NEOS definition, study design, sample size and microbiological data on common causative pathogens. In Table 2, information was included related to diagnostic factors (hematological parameters, biomarkers, blood cultures), mother-related risk factors (premature ruptures of membranes, gestational age at delivery, mode of delivery and delivery <37 weeks of gestation), neonate-related risk factor (low apgar score, resuscitation at birth, need for artificial ventilation, low birth weight) and therapy outcome parameters (length of nicu stay, recovery/success rate, change of antibiotics and death). This review was performed between January and April 2023.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.

Author and year Location Study period Settings Neonatal definition Study design Sample Size Top 3 isolated pathogens
Al-Matary et al., 2019 (27) Riyadh January 2011–December 2015 King Fahad Medical City Hospital <72 h Retrospective study 245 Group B streptococcus (33.3%) E. coli (27.3%) Streptococcus species (12.1%)
Al-Mouqdad et al., 2018 (29) Riyadh July 2015–June 2017 King Saud Medical City Not stated Retrospective study 295 – – –
Al-Rafiaah et al., 2016 (30) Riyadh 2014 King Abdul Aziz Medical City Not stated Retrospective study 85 E. coli (29.4%) Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (23.5%) Group B streptococcus (17.6%)
Al-Zaharani et al., 2015 (31) Taif January 2013–January 2014 King Abdul Aziz hospital Not stated Retrospective study 100 Klebsiella spp. (28.0%) E. coli (20.0%) Group B streptococcus (12.0%)
Almuneef et al., 2000 (32) Riyadh January 1990–December 1994 King Fahad National Guard hospital <7 days Retrospective study 23 Group B streptococcus (100%) – –
Hammoud et al., 2017 (28) Taif June 2013- May 2015 King Abdul Aziz hospital Maternity and children's hospital <72 h Prospective study 30,389 Group B streptococcus (59.8%) E. coli (12.7%) Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (5.9%)
Kilani et al., 2000 (33) Riyadh January 1996–December 1997 King Khalid University Hospital <48 h Retrospective study 865 E. coli (28.6%) MSSA (21.4%) Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (14.3%)
Huseynova et al., 2021 (34) Riyadh February 2020–June 2020 King Saud Medical City <72 h Retrospective study 44 Group B streptococcus (6.8%) – –
Al-Mudeer et al., 2020 (35) Jazan May 2012–April 2019 King Fahad Central Hospital <72 h Retrospective study 28,337 E. coli (29%) Group B streptococcus (17%) Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (11%)
Luhidan et al., 2019 (36) Riyadh 2004–2014 King Abdullah Specialized hospital <7 days Retrospective study 55 Group B streptococcus (100%) – –
Sobaih et al., 2014 (37) Riyadh January 1999–December 2007 King Khalid University Hospital <72 h Retrospective study 468 Staphylococcus epidermidis (45%) Staphylococcus aureus (11.8%) Klebsiella pneumoniae (11.8%)
Nasr et al., 2013 (38) Taif March 2012–August 2012 King Abdul Aziz hospital Not stated Prospective study 205 – – –
Fattah et al., 2017 (39) Riyadh January 2013–August 2015 King Abdul Aziz Medical City Not stated Prospective study 320 E. coli (68.0%) H. influenzae (27.0%) Group B streptococcus (6.0%)
Dawodu et al., 1997 (40) Khobar September 1983–September 1988 King Fahd Hospital <48 h Case-control 61 Staphylococcus epidermidis (18.0%) Klebsiella Enterobacter Serratia (8.1%) S aureus (3.2%)
Barnawi et al., 2020 (41) Madina March 2019–May 2019 Madina Maternity and Children hospital Not stated Case study 1 Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (100%) – –
Haque et al., 1990 (42) Riyadh October 1983–July 1988 King Khalid University Hospital <48 h Retrospective study 190 Staphylococcus epidermidis (35.7%) S aureus (17.3%) Klebsiella spp. (9.4%)
Ohlsson et al., 1986 (43) Riyadh November 1980–October 1984 King Faisal Specialist hospital <48 h Retrospective study 49 Klebsiella Enterobacter Serratia (21.3%) E. coli (17.6%) S. aureus (15.4%)
Alsohime et al., 2019 (44) Riyadh – King Saud Medical City Not stated Case study 1 Actinomyces neuii (100%) – –
Elbashier et al., 1994 (45) Qatif January 1989–January 1992 Qatif Central hospital <48 h Prospective study 144 Klebsiella spp. (29.7%) E. coli (21.6%) Pseudomonas spp. (5.4%)
Abu-Osba et al., 1989 (46) Dhahran January 1981–December 1986 Dhahran Health Center <3 days Retrospective study 76 Staphylococcus epidermidis (44.4%) Enterococcus (33.3%) E. coli (30.0%)
Srair et al., 1993 (47) Qatif June 1992–May 1993 Qatif Central hospital <72 h Prospective study 53 E. coli (15.1%) Group B streptococcus (11.3%) Streptococcal faecalis (9.4%)
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Diagnostic and risk factors and therapy outcomes of NEOS.

Author and year Diagnostic factors Risk factors Therapy outcomes
Mother-related Neonate-related
Hematological parameters Biomarkers Blood cultures Premature ruptures of membranes Gestational age at delivery Mode of delivery Delivery <37 weeks of gestation Low Apgar score Resuscitation at birth Need for artificial ventilation Low birth weight Length of NICU stay Recovery/success rate Change of antibiotics Death
Al-Matary et al., 2019 (27)
Al-Mouqdad et al., 2018 (29)
Al-Rafiaah et al., 2016 (30)
Al-Zaharani et al., 2015 (31)
Almuneef et al., 2000 (32)
Hammoud et al., 2017 (28)
Kilani et al., 2000 (33)
Huseynova et al., 2021 (34)
Al-Mudeer et al., 2020 (35)
Luhidan et al., 2019 (36)
Sobaih et al., 2014 (37)
Nasr et al., 2013 (38)
Fattah et al., 2017 (39)
Dawodu et al., 1997 (40)
Barnawi et al., 2020 (41)
Haque et al., 1990 (42)
Ohlsson et al., 1986 (43)
Alsohime et al., 2019 (44)
Elbashier et al., 1994 (45)
Abu-Osba et al., 1989 (46)
Srair et al., 1993 (47)
Total 10 7 18 5 5 7 7 5 1 2 12 3 8 5 11
Open in a new tab

2.5. Meta-analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using RStudio software (RStudio Team, Boston, MA; version R, 2023.03.0) using Meta Package and Metaprop command. The proportion test was performed to estimate the proportion of risk factors. I-squared (I2) index statistic was employed to evaluate the assertiveness heterogeneity in choice of effects, considering the randomized effect for the analysis. A threshold of 0.05 was considered significant.

3. Results

3.1. Included studies

The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram is shown in Figure 1 which is a graphical representation of the systematic review process. It outlines the steps involved in identifying, screening, and selecting studies for inclusion in a review. In this particular study, the review included searches of databases only. The diagram starts with the identification of studies via databases and registers, where 872 records were identified from databases and none from registers. After identifying the records, the next step was to remove duplicate records, which accounted for 289 records. In addition, 201 records were marked as ineligible by automation tools, and 176 records were excluded based on the initial screening of titles and abstracts. These studies did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria for our systematic review. The reasons for exclusion at this stage included irrelevant topics, unrelated interventions, and studies conducted in settings other than Saudi Arabia. Of the remaining 206 screened records, 58 were excluded further during the full-text assessment phase. These exclusions were due to the identification of commentaries, guidelines, and book chapters, which were not eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. The remaining 148 records were sought for retrieval, but 76 records were not retrieved. The 72 retrieved records were assessed for eligibility, where 12 non-English studies, 9 studies with inappropriate interventions, 7 studies with no required data, 17 studies with no full-text, and 6 review articles were excluded. Finally, 21 studies were included in the review. These studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Figure 2 showed that most of the studies were conducted from Riyadh and eastern provinces of KSA.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of included studies.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Numbers of studies in different provinces of KSA.

The studies used different study designs, including retrospective, prospective, case-control, and case studies, and varied in their neonatal definitions of NEOS, study period, and sample sizes. The Table 1 included the results of 21 different studies on neonatal sepsis conducted in different locations and settings in Saudi Arabia. The studies varied in terms of study design, sample size, and prevalence of neonatal sepsis (NOS). The sample sizes of the studies varied widely, ranging from 1 in case study to 30,389 in prospective study. The larger sample sizes were reported by Al-Mudeer et al. (2020) and Hammoud et al. (2017), both of which had over 28,000 participants. The studies were conducted in different settings, including medical centers, hospitals, and maternity and children's hospitals. The top three isolated pathogens varied across the studies. Group B streptococcus (GBS) and E. coli were the most commonly isolated pathogens, with GBS being the most commonly isolated pathogen in 5 of the 21 studies. Other pathogens that were commonly isolated include Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (CNS), Klebsiella spp., and Staphylococcus epidermidis. The distribution of pathogens in different cities of KSA is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Distribution of pathogens in different cities of KSA.

The present study also aimed to investigate the diagnostic and risk factors and therapy outcomes of NEOS in ICU patients in Saudi Arabia as shown in Table 2. The analysis of the results obtained from the 21 selected studies revealed that various factors were used for the diagnosis of EOS, including hematological parameters, biomarkers and blood cultures, The use of hematological parameters, such as white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, and immature to total neutrophil ratio, was reported by some studies as a diagnostic factor for EOS. In contrast, biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were reported by several studies as useful tools for the diagnosis of EOS. Blood cultures are considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of NEOS and several studies reported that blood cultures were used as a diagnostic factor for NEOS. Regarding the mother and neonate related risk factors, gestational age at delivery was reported as a significant risk factor for NEOS by some studies. Preterm delivery is known to increase the risk of NEOS due to the immature immune system of preterm infants. Moreover, premature rupture of membranes was reported by some studies as a significant risk factor for EOS. Low Apgar score at birth, need for artificial ventilation, and low birth weight were also reported by some studies as significant risk factors for NEOS. The length of NICU stay was reported as a neonate-related risk factor by some studies. Mode of delivery including vaginal delivery and caesarean section was reported by some studies as a significant risk factor for NEOS. In terms of therapy outcomes, the recovery or success rate of therapy was reported by several studies. The change of antibiotics during treatment was reported by some studies. The overall death rate was reported by most of the studies. Nevertheless, the present study revealed that there is heterogeneity among the diagnostic factors and risk factors reported by the selected studies. This heterogeneity may be due to differences in the study population.

3.2. Meta-analysis

While performing meta-analysis, significant heterogeneity between included studies, as shown by I2 (>90%) was observed, thus all the data were analyzed following random effect models. Overall, the risk factors including mother-related and neonate-related increased the chances of early onset sepsis (EOS). Most of the studies reported that pre-term neonates (95% CI: 0.20–0.50) and low birth weight neonates (95% CI: 0.11–0.44) were at elevated risk of EOS. The detailed results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 4.

Table 3.

Risk factors included in meta-analysis of early onset sepsis.

Risk factors No. of studies Sample size Weight (%) 95% confidence interval Heterogeneity I2 P-value
LCI UCI
Mother-related
Premature rupture of membrane 5 549 15.6% 0.05 0.19 91% <0.01
Cesarean delivery 7 918 19.5% 0.18 0.52 98% <0.01
<37 weeks of gestation 10 954 26.1% 0.20 0.50 95% <0.01
Neonate-related
Low birth weight 10 1,285 26.9% 0.11 0.44 97% <0.01
Resuscitation at birth 1 52 2.9% 0.24 0.51 Not estimated Not estimated
Need of artificial ventilation 3 222 9% 0.22 0.79 96% <0.01
Open in a new tab

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Foster plot.

3.3. Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and Joanna briggs Institute (JBI) critical checklist for case study. For cohort studies, the NOS was used to assess the methodological quality of each study. This scale evaluates the risk of bias in three domains: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and the ascertainment of exposure/outcome. Each study is awarded a maximum of nine stars based on its quality in these three domains, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias. This checklist includes criteria such as clear identification of the problem, description of the context, adequate data analysis, and appropriate conclusions. Each study was evaluated against these criteria to determine its methodological quality any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus. The details are mentioned in Tables 4, 5.

Table 4.

Quality assessment of cohort studies.

Reference Selection Comparability Outcomes Quality Score
Representative of samplea Sample sizeb Non-respondentsc Ascertainment of exposured Comparability of cohort studies on basis of designe Assessment of outcomesf Statistical analysisg
Al-Matary et al., 2019 (27) * * – – * ** * 6
Al-Mouqdad et al., 2018 (29) * * – ** * ** * 8
Al-Rafiaah et al., 2016 (30) * * – – * ** * 6
Al-Zaharani et al., 2015 (31) * * – * * ** * 7
Almuneef et al., 2000 (32) * * – ** * ** * 8
Hammoud et al., 2017 (28) * * – * * ** * 7
Kilani et al., 2000 (33) * * – – * ** * 6
Huseynova et al., 2021 (34) * * – ** * ** * 8
Al-Mudeer et al., 2020 (35) * * – – * ** * 6
Luhidan et al., 2019 (36) * * – ** * ** * 8
Sobaih et al., 2014 (37) * * – * * ** * 7
Nasr et al., 2013 (38) * * – * * ** * 7
Fattah et al., 2017 (39) * * – * * ** * 7
Dawodu et al., 1997 (40) * * – * * ** * 7
Haque et al., 1990 (42) * * – – * ** – 5
Ohlsson et al., 1986 (43) * * – – * ** – 5
Elbashier et al., 1994 (45) * * – * * ** * 7
Abu-Osba et al., 1989 (46) * * – – * ** * 6
Srair et al., 1993 (47) * * – – * ** * 6
Open in a new tab
a

* = truly representative or somewhat representative of average in target population.

b

* = Drawn from the same community.

c

* = Secured record or structured review.

d

* = Yes, − = No.

e

* = Study controls for age, gender, and other factors.

f

* = Record linkage or blind assessment, ** = Both.

g

* = follow-up of all subjects.

Table 5.

Quality assessment of case reports.

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Quality rating
Dawodu et al., 1997 (40) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Good
Barnawi et al., 2020 (41) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Good
Open in a new tab

Q1. Were patient's demographic characteristics clearly described? Q2. Was the patient's history clearly described and presented as a timeline? Q3. Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? Q4. Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? Q5. Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? Q6. Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? Q7. Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? Q8. Does the case report provide takeaway lessons?

4. Discussion

This systematic review is one of the broadest studies to show the pattern, risk and diagnostic factors, and clinical outcome of newborn with NEOS from Saudi Arabia. Findings of 21 studies were included which are consistent with observations from other research indicating the proportion of NEOS is significantly higher (48, 49). The risk factors identified are similar to other previous studies, focusing on the significance of premature rupture of membrane, premature birth, and low birth weight. According to a study, NEOS is more common in newborns with extremely low birth weights, decreased respiratory function at delivery, and mother related risk factors (50). These results may be explained by preterm babies' weak innate immune system, which increase their risk of developing NEOS (5). NEOS develops in the uterus as a result of maternal blood infection or, more frequently because of infection of the placenta and the amniotic fluid (51). Patients may present with fetal distress, pneumonia, newborn asphyxia or sepsis owing to aspiration of contaminated amniotic fluid or secretions after delivery (52). A comprehensive study looked at whether newborn clinical presentation might be used to rule out EOS in babies born to moms who had chorioamnionitis. According to the investigation, EOS can happen in infants who had initially positive clinical status (53). A range of services are available in different healthcare settings included in this review, to manage high-risk newborns who are prone to infection. Nevertheless, in our review, we discovered a variety of variables, including a low Apgar score, in a sizable number of neonates as a risk factor for NEOS. This finding is consistent with other studies that revealed a low Apgar score to be strongly related with newborn sepsis (48, 49, 54). Low Apgar ratings in newborns make them more vulnerable to infection because they are less able to handle stress from outside sources (55). Furthermore, the findings revealed that NEOS patients had low birth weights, which is consistent with a finding from other research (56). The leading maternal risk factors for NEOS were found to be multiparty and caesarean birth. This was also the main maternal risk factor for NEOS according to a research by Al Dasoky et al. in a tertiary care hospital in Jordan (57). A valuable measure of the health of the newborn and the severity of the illness is the total WBC count. Our review revealed that the patients' WBC counts were disturbed which is a sign of a severe illness in the newborn (58). The fact that NEOS occurs while the mother and child are still confined to the hospital and that there is a significant risk of hospital acquired infection (59).

In developed and underdeveloped countries, different pathogens are responsible for causing newborn sepsis including both Gram-negative and positive bacteria (60). Nonetheless, the present initiatives for maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis against GBS may be responsible for the more prevalence of Gram-negative microbes (61). A variety of pathogens are responsible for neonatal EOS, depending on multiple factors, such as hospital practices, geographical region, and changes in microbial resistance pattern. Overall, Group B streptococcus and E. coli are the leading pathogens for EOS. However, the patterns of pathogens may vary from state to state. According to our findings, GBS was the most prevalent etiologic agent in NEOS, followed by E. coli. Our study reported that Staphylococcus species are responsible for EOS in Khobar, E. coli in Jazan and Klebsiella spp. in Taif. Stoll et al., reported that E. coli associated sepsis was increased from 3.2 to 6.8 per 1,000 live births. Likewise, the most frequently identified agent in NEOS in European countries is GBS, followed by Gram-negative bacilli and staphylococci (62). Moreover, GBS, staphylococci, gram-negative bacteria, and candida were identified in NEOS patients in other regions as well (6, 7, 9, 16, 49). According to earlier research that is in line with our results, infant sepsis mortality is also very high and had a mortality rate for NEIOS 10%–20% (63). Neonates are more susceptible to infections in ICU settings because of their immature immune system, and exposure to invasive medical procedures.

To the best our knowledge, this is first systematic review carried out from the KSA and is notable because it represents a comprehensive complete database evaluated to identify the pattern, diagnostic and risk factors, and therapy outcomes of NEOS in different healthcare institutes in KSA. It is crucial to undertake more controlled research studies since neonatal safety is so important. Incidence or prevalence of NEOS in the KSA population must be quantified. Moreover, larger trials are necessary to assess the safety and effectiveness of antibiotic therapy. However, no adverse drug reactions were seen, indicating that even if a negative effect existed, it would likely be rare and would need to be considered in relation to the unfavourable consequences of sepsis assessments and antibiotic exposure. Prior research studies from other parts of world have demonstrated the need of clinical monitoring as a component of any NEOS approach by showing that GBS-specific NEOS persists in children delivered to moms who screen erroneously negative for GBS without additional intrapartum risk factors for EOS (64–66). Nonetheless, this systematic review provides a valuable baseline data to start in KSA. Future studies could explore further questions.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review highlighted the various substantial risk factors associated with development of neonatal early onset sepsis in ICU patients. The prevalence of EOS is high in neonates admitted to ICU with multiple maternal and neonatal risk factors. Therefore, by identifying such factors, the healthcare experts can implement targeted preventive strategies and monitor these risk factors, thus reducing the prevalence of EOS and improving the therapeutic outcomes. Moreover, high-quality studies and better diagnostics are required especially in hospitals with high neonatal mortality to evaluate the prevalence of EOS, identify the associated risk factors and clinical outcomes.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

RA was employed by Al-Dawaa Medical Services Company Limited.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2023.1206389/full#supplementary-material

Table1.docx (12.5KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Simonsen KA, Anderson-Berry AL, Delair SF, Davies HD. Early-onset neonatal sepsis. Clin Microbiol Rev. (2014) 27(1):21–47. 10.1128/CMR.00031-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chacko B, Sohi I. Early onset neonatal sepsis. Indian J Pediatr. (2005) 72(1):23–6. 10.1007/BF02760574 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stoll BJ, Hansen N, Fanaroff AA, Wright LL, Carlo WA, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. Changes in pathogens causing early-onset sepsis in very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med. (2002) 347(4):240–7. 10.1056/NEJMoa012657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schuchat A, Zywicki SS, Dinsmoor MJ, Mercer B, Romaguera J, O'Sullivan MJ, et al. Risk factors and opportunities for prevention of early-onset neonatal sepsis: a multicenter case-control study. Pediatrics. (2000) 105(1):21–6. 10.1542/peds.105.1.21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Glaser MA, Hughes LM, Jnah A, Newberry D, Harris-Haman PA. Neonatal sepsis: a review of pathophysiology and current management strategies. Adv Neonatal Care. (2021) 21(1):49–60. 10.1097/ANC.0000000000000769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Braye K, et al. Epidemiology of neonatal early-onset sepsis in a geographically diverse Australian health district 2006-2016. PloS One. (2019) 14(4):e0214298. 10.1371/journal.pone.0214298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Joshi NS, Huynh K, Lu T, Lee HC, Frymoyer A. Epidemiology and trends in neonatal early onset sepsis in California, 2010–2017. J Perinatol. (2022) 42(7):940–6. 10.1038/s41372-022-01393-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Weston EJ, Pondo T, Lewis MM, Martell-Cleary P, Morin C, Jewell B, et al. The burden of invasive early-onset neonatal sepsis in the United States, 2005–2008. Pediatr Infect Dis J. (2011) 30(11):937. 10.1097/INF.0b013e318223bad2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Sánchez PJ, Faix RG, Poindexter BB, Van Meurs KP, et al. Early onset neonatal sepsis: the burden of group B streptococcal and E. coli disease continues. Pediatrics. (2011) 127(5):817–26. 10.1542/peds.2010-2217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rodwell RL, Leslie AL, Tudehope DI. Early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis using a hematologic scoring system. J Pediatr. (1988) 112(5):761–7. 10.1016/S0022-3476(88)80699-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Griffin MP, Moorman JR. Toward the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and sepsis-like illness using novel heart rate analysis. Pediatrics. (2001) 107(1):97–104. 10.1542/peds.107.1.97 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dadgostar P. Antimicrobial resistance: implications and costs. Infect Drug Resist. (2019) 12:3903–10. 10.2147/IDR.S234610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Stocker M, van Herk W, El Helou S, Dutta S, Schuerman FA, van den Tooren-de Groot RK, et al. C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and white blood count to rule out neonatal early-onset sepsis within 36h: a secondary analysis of the neonatal procalcitonin intervention study. Clin Infect Dis. (2021) 73(2):e383–90. 10.1093/cid/ciaa876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Snoek L, van Kassel MN, Krommenhoek JF, Achten NB, Plötz FB, van Sorge NM, et al. Neonatal early-onset infections: comparing the sensitivity of the neonatal early-onset sepsis calculator to the Dutch and the updated NICE guidelines in an observational cohort of culture-positive cases. EClinicalMedicine. (2022) 44. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Oddie S, Embleton ND. Risk factors for early onset neonatal group B streptococcal sepsis: case-control study. Br Med J. (2002) 325(7359):308. 10.1136/bmj.325.7359.308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Klinger G, Levy I, Sirota L, Boyko V, Reichman B, Lerner-Geva L, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for early onset sepsis among very-low-birthweight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. (2009) 201(1):38.e1–6. 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Higgins RD, Fanaroff AA, Duara S, Goldberg R, et al. Very low birth weight preterm infants with early onset neonatal sepsis: the predominance of gram-negative infections continues in the national institute of child health and human development neonatal research network, 2002–2003. Pediatr Infect Dis J. (2005) 24(7):635–9. 10.1097/01.inf.0000168749.82105.64 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fileccia L, Wood T, Guthrie A, Ronoh C, Sleeth C, Kamath-Rayne BD, et al. Comparison of early-onset sepsis risk-stratification algorithms in neonates in a Kenyan nursery. Hosp Pediatr. (2022) 12(10):876–84. 10.1542/hpeds.2021-006228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion No. 485. Prevention of earlyonset group B streptococcal disease in newborns. Obstet Gynecol. (2011) 117(4):1019–27. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318219229b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Verani JR, McGee L, Schrag SJ. Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease: revised guidelines from CDC, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. (2010) 59(RR-10):1–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Puopolo KM, Eichenwald EC. No change in the incidence of ampicillin-resistant, neonatal, early-onset sepsis over 18 years. Pediatrics. (2010) 125(5):e1031–8. 10.1542/peds.2009-1573 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moore MR, Schrag SJ, Schuchat A. Effects of intrapartum antimicrobial prophylaxis for prevention of group-B-streptococcal disease on the incidence and ecology of early-onset neonatal sepsis. Lancet Infect Dis. (2003) 3(4):201–13. 10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00577-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bizzarro MJ, Raskind C, Baltimore RS, Gallagher PG. Seventy-five years of neonatal sepsis at Yale: 1928–2003. Pediatrics. (2005) 116(3):595–602. 10.1542/peds.2005-0552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kuzniewicz MW, Walsh EM, Li S, Fischer A, Escobar GJ. Development and implementation of an early-onset sepsis calculator to guide antibiotic management in late preterm and term neonates. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. (2016) 42(5):232–9. 10.1016/S1553-7250(16)42030-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Polin RA. Management of neonates with suspected or proven early-onset bacterial sepsis. Pediatrics. (2012) 129(5):1006–15. 10.1542/peds.2012-0541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. (2017) 43(3):304–77. 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Al-Matary A, Heena H, AlSarheed AS, Ouda W, AlShahrani DA, Wani TA, et al. Characteristics of neonatal sepsis at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. J Infect Public Health. (2019) 12(5):666–72. 10.1016/j.jiph.2019.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hammoud MS, Al-Taiar A, Al-Abdi SY, Bozaid H, Khan A, AlMuhairi LM, et al. Culture-proven early-onset neonatal sepsis in Arab states in the gulf region: two-year prospective study. Int J Infect Dis. (2017) 55:11–5. 10.1016/j.ijid.2016.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Al-Mouqdad MM, Aljobair F, Alaklobi FA, Taha MY, Abdelrahim A, Asfour SS, et al. The consequences of prolonged duration of antibiotics in premature infants with suspected sepsis in a large tertiary referral hospital: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. (2018) 5(3):110–5. 10.1016/j.ijpam.2018.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alrafiaah AS, Al Shaalan M, Alshammari FO, Almohaisani AA, Bawazir AS, Omair A, et al. Neonatal sepsis in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Int J Adv Res. (2016) 4:1713–20. 10.21474/IJAR01/2265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Al-Zahrani AK, Ghonaim MM, Hussein YM, Eed EM, Khalifa AS, Dorgham LS, et al. Evaluation of recent methods versus conventional methods for diagnosis of early-onset neonatal sepsis. J Infect Dev Ctries. (2015) 9(04):388–93. 10.3855/jidc.5950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Almuneef M, Alalola S, Ahmed S, Memish Z, Khan MY, Alshaalan M, et al. The changing spectrum of group B streptococcal (GBS) infection in infants of Saudi Arabia. J Chemother. (2000) 12(1):48–52. 10.1179/joc.2000.12.1.48 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kilani RA, Basamad M. Pattern of proven bacterial sepsis in a neonatal intensive care unit in Riyadh-Saudi Arabia: a 2-year analysis. J Med Liban. (2000) 48(2):77–83. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Huseynova R, Mahmoud LB, Aljobair FH, Huseynov O, Jaganathan PP, Abdelrahim A, et al. Use of early-onset sepsis risk calculator for neonates ≥34 weeks in a large tertiary neonatal centre, Saudi Arabia. Cureus. (2021) 13(4). 10.7759/cureus.14620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Almudeer AH, Alibrahim MA, Gosadi IM. Epidemiology and risk factors associated with early onset neonatal sepsis in the south of KSA. J Taibah Univ Medical Sci. (2020) 15(6):509–14. 10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Al Luhidan L, Madani A, Albanyan EA, Al Saif S, Nasef M, AlJohani S, et al. Neonatal group B streptococcal infection in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia: a 13-year experience. Pediatr Infect Dis J. (2019) 38(7). 10.1097/INF.0000000000002269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sobaih BH, Al-Mandeel H. Early and late onset neonatal sepsis in very low birth weight infants in a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia. J Neonatal Biol. (2014) 3(5):2–4. 10.4172/2167-0897.1000159 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Nasr A, Allam G, Al-Zahrani A, Alsulaimani A. Neonatal infections in Saudi Arabia: association with C-reactive protein, CRP -286 (C>T>A) gene polymorphism and IgG antibodies. BMC Immunol. (2013) 14(1):38. 10.1186/1471-2172-14-38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fattah MA, Al Fadhil AO, Asaif S, Manlulu R, Karar T, Ahmed A, et al. Utility of cytokine, adhesion molecule and acute phase proteins in early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. J Nat Sci Biol Med. (2017) 8(1):32. 10.4103/0976-9668.198362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dawodu A, Al Umran K, Twum-Danso K. A case control study of neonatal sepsis: experience from Saudi Arabia. J Trop Pediatr. (1997) 43(2):84–8. 10.1093/tropej/43.2.84 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Barnawi AI, Kordy FN, Almuwallad OK, Kassarah KA. Early neonatal sepsis and meningitis caused by Elizabethkingia meningoseptica in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. (2020) 41(7):753. 10.15537/smj.2020.7.25720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Haque KN, Chagia AH, Shaheed MM. Half a decade of neonatal sepsis, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. J Trop Pediatr. (1990) 36(1):20–3. 10.1093/tropej/36.1.20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ohlsson A, Bailey T, Takieddine F. Changing etiology and outcome of neonatal septicemia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Acta Pædiatrica. (1986) 75(4):540–4. 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1986.tb10246.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Alsohime F, Assiri RA, Al-Shahrani F, Bakeet H, Elhazmi M, Somily AM, et al. Premature labor and neonatal sepsis caused by Actinomyces neuii. J Infect Public Health. (2019) 12(2):282–4. 10.1016/j.jiph.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Elbashier AM, Abusrair H, Owa JA. Aetiology of neonatal septicaemia in Qatif, Saudi Arabia. Early Child Dev Care. (1994) 98(1):31–8. 10.1080/0300443940980104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Abu-Osba YK, Mallouh AA, Hann RW, Tolley S. Pattern of and risk factors for neonatal sepsis in Saudi Arab newborn. J Obstet Gynaecol. (1989) 10(sup1):S23–4. 10.3109/01443618909151292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Srair HA, Owa JA, El-Bashier AM, Aman H. Genital flora, prolonged rupture of the membranes and the risk of early onset neonatal septicemia in Qatif Central Hospital, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Early Child Dev Care. (1993) 93(1):79–85. 10.1080/0030443930930108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sundaram V, Kumar P, Dutta S, Mukhopadhyay K, Ray P, Gautam V, et al. Blood culture confirmed bacterial sepsis in neonates in a north Indian tertiary care center: changes over the last decade. Jpn J Infect Dis. (2009) 62(1):46–50. 10.7883/yoken.JJID.2009.46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jabiri A, Wella HL, Semiono A, Saria A, Protas J. Prevalence and factors associated with neonatal sepsis among neonates in Temeke and Mwananyamala Hospitals in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Tanzan J Health Res. (2016) 18(4). 10.4314/thrb.v18i4.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Naher H, Khamael A. Neonatal sepsis; the bacterial causes and the risk factors. Int Res J Medical Sci. (2013) 1(6):19–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Newton ER. Chorioamnionitis and intraamniotic infection. Clin Obstet Gynecol. (1993) 36(4):795–808. 10.1097/00003081-199312000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.De Cunto A, Paviotti G, Demarini S. Neonatal aspiration: not just meconium. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. (2013) 6(4):355–7. 10.3233/NPM-1372613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wortham JM, Hansen NI, Schrag SJ, Hale E, Van Meurs K, Sánchez PJ, et al. Chorioamnionitis and culture-confirmed, early-onset neonatal infections. Pediatrics. (2016) 137(1). 10.1542/peds.2015-2323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Adatara P, Afaya A, Salia SM, Afaya RA, Konlan KD, Agyabeng-Fandoh E, et al. Risk factors associated with neonatal sepsis: a case study at a specialist hospital in Ghana. Sci World J. (2019) 2019. 10.1155/2019/9369051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cnattingius S, Johansson S, Razaz N. Apgar score and risk of neonatal death among preterm infants. N Engl J Med. (2020) 383(1):49–57. 10.1056/NEJMoa1915075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Haque KN. Definitions of bloodstream infection in the newborn. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2005) 6(3):S45–9. 10.1097/01.PCC.0000161946.73305.0A [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Al Dasoky HA, Al Awaysheh FN, Kaplan NM, Al Rimawi HA, Agha R, Abu-Setteh M, et al. Risk factors for neonatal sepsis in tertiary hospital in Jordan. JRMS. (2009) 16(3):16–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hornik CP, Benjamin DK, Becker KC, Benjamin DK, Jr, Li J, Clark RH, et al. Use of the complete blood cell count in early-onset neonatal sepsis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. (2012) 31(8):799–802. 10.1097/INF.0b013e318256905c [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Srivastava S, Shetty N. Healthcare-associated infections in neonatal units: lessons from contrasting worlds. J Hosp Infect. (2007) 65(4):292–306. 10.1016/j.jhin.2007.01.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bas AY, Demirel N, Zenciroglu A, Göl N, Tanir G, et al. Nosocomial blood stream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit in Ankara, Turkey. Turk J Pediatr. (2010) 52(5):464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Schrag SJ, Zywicki S, Farley MM, Reingold AL, Harrison LH, Lefkowitz LB, et al. Group B streptococcal disease in the era of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis. N Engl J Med. (2000) 342(1):15–20. 10.1056/NEJM200001063420103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gerdes JS. Diagnosis and management of bacterial infections in the neonate. Pediatric Clinics. (2004) 51(4):939–59. 10.1016/j.pcl.2004.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Turhan EE, Gürsoy T, Ovalı F. Factors which affect mortality in neonatal sepsis. Turk Arch Pediatr. (2015) 50(3):170. 10.5152/TurkPediatriArs.2015.2627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Escobar GJ, Puopolo KM, Wi S, Turk BJ, Kuzniewicz MW, Walsh EM, et al. Stratification of risk of early-onset sepsis in newborns ≥34 weeks’ gestation. Pediatrics. (2014) 133(1):30–6. 10.1542/peds.2013-1689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Puopolo KM, Madoff LC, Eichenwald EC. Early-onset group B streptococcal disease in the era of maternal screening. Pediatrics. (2005) 115(5):1240–6. 10.1542/peds.2004-2275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Van Dyke MK, Phares CR, Lynfield R, Thomas AR, Arnold KE, Craig AS, et al. Evaluation of universal antenatal screening for group B streptococcus. N Engl J Med. (2009) 360(25):2626–36. 10.1056/NEJMoa0806820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table1.docx (12.5KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Articles from Frontiers in Pediatrics are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES