↓ Skip to main content

Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Molecular assays for the diagnosis of sepsis in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011926.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pammi, Mohan, Flores, Angela, Versalovic, James, Leeflang, Mariska MG

Abstract

Microbial cultures for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis have low sensitivity and reporting delay. Advances in molecular microbiology have fostered new molecular assays that are rapid and may improve neonatal outcomes. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of various molecular methods for the diagnosis of culture-positive bacterial and fungal sepsis in neonates and to explore heterogeneity among studies by analyzing subgroups classified by gestational age and type of sepsis onset and compare molecular tests with one another. We performed the systematic review as recommended by the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. On 19 January 2016, we searched electronic bibliographic databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed (from 1966), Embase (from 1982), and CINAHL (from 1982)), conference proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies annual conference (from 1990), clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Platform (ICTRP) Search portal), and Science Citation Index. We contacted experts in the field for studies. We included studies that were prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional design, which evaluated molecular assays (index test) in neonates with suspected sepsis (participants) in comparison with microbial cultures (reference standard). Two review authors independently assessed the methodologic quality of the studies and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses using the bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models and entered data into Review Manager 5. Thirty-five studies were eligible for inclusion and the summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.95) and of specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) (moderate quality evidence). We explored heterogeneity by subgroup analyses of type of test, gestational age, type of sepsis onset, and prevalence of sepsis and we did not find sufficient explanations for the heterogeneity (moderate to very low quality evidence). Sensitivity analyses by including studies that analyzed blood samples and by good methodology revealed similar results (moderate quality evidence). Molecular assays have the advantage of producing rapid results and may perform well as 'add-on' tests.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Researcher 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Unspecified 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2017.
All research outputs
#603,926
of 11,320,109 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,259
of 9,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,661
of 258,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,320,109 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.