Table 1.
Reference | Country, Year | Method | Design | Population | Scoring System (Points) | Main Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[27] | India, 2003 | Prospective | Original | 80 neonates: 105 episodes (30 definite, 17 probable sepsis and 58 no sepsis) 91% preterm, 93% LBW |
|
Score different in septic and no septic infants. Most prevalent signs in septic babies: apnea, lethargy, tachycardia. Most specific signs in septic babies: grunting, hypothermia, chest retractions. |
[28] | Turkey, 2005 | Retrospective | Original and external validation (comparison with NOSEP score of Mahieu et al.) | 102 neonates: 132 episodes (51 blood culture (+), 51 no sepsis) |
|
Score different in septic and no septic infants. Feeding intolerance and higher I:T ratio as significant predictors of NS. |
[29] | India, 2008 | Prospective | Validation (of Singh et al.) | 202 neonates: 220 episodes (60 definite sepsis) Weight: 1000–2500 g |
|
The most frequent signs in septic infants: lethargy, apnea and pre feeds aspirates. All clinical signs decreased in frequency from 0 h to 24 h. Different score at 0 h and at 24 h: Se better at 0 h (all sick neonates included), Sp, PPV, NPV better at 24 h. Better prediction of NS at 24 h (PPV↑ at 24 h). Score combined with sepsis screen: ↑Se, NPV but ↓Sp, PPV |
[30] | Bangladesh, 2010 | Retrospective | Validation (of Singh et al.) and original | 160 neonates: 193 episodes (105 culture (+) in 98 neonates, 88 culture (−) in 79 neonates)GA ≤ 33 weeks (very preterm), ≤72 h admitted to hospital |
|
First bedside clinical score for very premature neonates in a low-resource setting. This external validation performed significantly lower Sensitivity than the original study. As the number of sings presented within 48 h of sepsis evaluation was increased, Se and NPV were reduced, while Sp and PPV were augmented. Sensitivity reducing when more than 1 signs were present. |