Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Samuel R Neal, Sarah Sturrock, David Musorowegomo, Hannah Gannon, Michele Zaman, Mario Cortina-Borja, Kirsty Le Doare, Michelle Heys, Gwen Chimhini, Felicity Fitzgerald
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.05.24313133

SUMMARY

Neonatal sepsis causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide but is difficult to diagnose clinically. Clinical prediction models (CPMs) could improve diagnostic accuracy. Neonates in low- income and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected by sepsis, yet no review has comprehensively synthesised CPMs validated in this setting. We performed a scoping review of CPMs for neonatal sepsis diagnosis validated in low-income and middle-income countries. From 4598 unique records, we included 82 studies validating 44 distinct models. Most studies were set in neonatal intensive or special care units in middle-income countries and included neonates already suspected of sepsis. Three quarters of models were only validated in one study. Our review highlights several literature gaps, particularly a paucity of studies validating models in low-income countries and the WHO African region, and models for the general neonatal population.

Furthermore, heterogeneity in study populations, definitions of sepsis and reporting of models may hinder progress in this field.

INTRODUCTION

Neonatal sepsis is a clinical syndrome caused by severe systemic infection in the first month of life.1 It is a leading cause of global neonatal mortality and disproportionately affects neonates in low- income and middle-income countries (LMICs).2

Conventionally, neonatal sepsis is divided into early-onset sepsis (EOS) usually due to vertical transmission of pathogens from the maternal genitourinary tract and occurring in the first 48-72 hours of life, and late-onset sepsis (LOS) usually due to pathogens acquired from the home or hospital environment and occurring after 48-72 hours.3 For infections caused by group B streptococcus (GBS), EOS is often considered to occur up to the seventh day of life.3 However, there is increasing recognition that this conventional classification of neonatal sepsis is misplaced in LMICs where neonates may be exposed from birth to organisms traditionally associated with LOS due to high rates of healthcare-associated infections.4

Neonatal sepsis is difficult to diagnose clinically due to non-specific signs and symptoms. Identifying a pathogenic organism from a normally sterile site (e.g. blood or cerebrospinal fluid) remains the gold standard method for diagnosis.3 Nevertheless, ‘clinical’ or ‘culture-negative’ sepsis – where a sterile culture is obtained from a neonate with signs and symptoms of sepsis – is a recognised entity.5 When sepsis is suspected, a fine balance must be struck between the risk of failing to treat a true invasive infection and the risks of unnecessary antimicrobial use, which can contribute to antimicrobial resistance,4 and adverse neonatal outcomes.6 Additionally, national guidelines advise starting antimicrobial therapy within one hour of suspecting sepsis to maximise the chance of survival, leaving little time for clinicians to make a diagnosis.7

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are tools that combine characteristics to estimate the probability of a diagnosis or prognostic outcome.8 Models exist to diagnose neonatal sepsis in both high-income countries and LMICs based on various clinical features, risk factors and/or laboratory tests. These CPMs aim to improve diagnostic accuracy and therefore rationalise antibiotic use. The benefits of early recognition and treatment could be significant for neonates in low-resource settings where specialist care is limited.9 Furthermore, reducing the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance is even more crucial where access to sufficiently broad-spectrum antimicrobials may be unaffordable for patients.10

While several existing reviews examine CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis,11–14 there has been no comprehensive synthesis of models validated in LMICs. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to map the literature of CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis in LMICs.

Specific objectives were:

  1. To provide an overview of existing CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis in LMICs

  2. To determine the evidence underlying the use of CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis in LMICs

  3. To compare the performance of CPMs using different approaches to risk stratification or different target populations

  4. To identify unanswered research questions surrounding CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis in LMICs, which may guide future primary research or systematic reviews

METHODS

We conducted this review according to an a priori published protocol,15 developed with reference to the scoping review guidelines provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute.16 We report methods and results in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (see supplementary appendix).17

Search strategy

Eligibility criteria are shown in Table 1. After reviewing the extent and breadth of the literature from our initial searches, we narrowed the scope of our original protocol to focus specifically on studies that validate a CPM to diagnose neonatal sepsis in a LMIC, as defined by the World Bank in 2020.18 We searched six electronic databases from their inception: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Global Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Library. Searches were initially performed on 20 December 2019 and updated on 5 September 2022 and 16 June 2024.

View this table:
Table 1. Eligibility criteria.

Search terms were chosen to capture the three domains of the research question (‘neonate’, ‘sepsis’, and ‘clinical prediction model’) through collaboration with a child health specialist librarian. The search strategy was developed for Ovid MEDLINE and adapted for each database (see supplementary appendix). Additional studies were identified by citation analysis and by hand searching the reference lists of included studies.

Record screening

We imported identified records into EndNote 21 for deduplication.19 Unique records were then uploaded to the Rayyan application for screening by two independent reviewers (DM, HG, MZ, SRN or SS).20 Titles and abstracts were first examined against the eligibility criteria to determine if each record was potentially eligible for inclusion. Next, full texts of potentially eligible studies were obtained and reviewed to confirm eligibility. Authors were contacted to request full texts where these could not be found online. Conflicts were resolved by discussion amongst the review team.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers for the initial searches (SRN and SS) and by one reviewer for each updated search (SRN or SS). We extracted data on study, participant and model characteristics, and model performance using a pre-piloted data extraction form (see supplementary appendix). Data items were chosen based on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.21 We summarised results by narrative synthesis. Data for quantitative outcomes were not pooled in a meta-analysis as this is beyond the scoping review methodology. Where multiple variations of a model were presented in the same study (e.g. different combinations of predictors presented during model specification), or model performance was presented at multiple classification thresholds, we only included data for the ‘optimal’ or ‘final’ model at a single classification threshold.

RESULTS

Searches and included studies

Searches identified 4598 unique records (Figure 1). From these, 82 studies published between 2003 and 2024 were included,22–103 and are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. The number of published studies validating a CPM to diagnose neonatal sepsis in LMICs has increased rapidly in recent years (Figure 2). Studies were conducted in 22 individual countries (Figure 3 and Table 4), with the greatest number of studies conducted in the World Health Organization (WHO) South-East Asian Region (n=48, 59%), particularly in India (n=37, 45%). The fewest studies were conducted in the WHO African Region (n=4, 5%). Regarding economic status, 51 studies were conducted exclusively in lower middle-income countries (62%) and 30 exclusively in upper middle-income countries (37%).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart of study selection.

GIM = Global Index Medicus. Adapted from Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Number of studies included in our review by year of publication. Red line represents a local regression (LOESS) model fitted on the yearly publication counts.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Choropleth map of number of included studies by country. Created with DataWrapper: Lorenz, Aisch, and Kokkelink, ‘Datawrapper: Create Charts and Maps’.

View this table:
Table 2. Summary of included studies and model performance.
View this table:
Table 3. Summary of model characteristics,
View this table:
Table 4. Summary of geographical and economic distribution of included studies.

One study pooled data from both low-income and lower middle-income countries.98 Most studies were set in intensive care or special care admission units (n=64, 78%). The remainder included all live births at study sites (n=12, 15%), neonates presenting to emergency care services (n=3, 4%), all hospitalised neonates (n=1, 1%), or the setting was unclear (n=2, 2%).

In total, 24252 neonates were included across all studies. The median number of participants per study was 151 (range 36 to 3303, interquartile range [IQR] 200). Few studies restricted the study population based on gestational age or birthweight, with only 4 studies (5%) specifically investigating preterm neonates and 5 studies (6%) specifically investigating low or very low birthweight neonates. Most studies included neonates clinically suspected of sepsis or with specific maternal risk factors including chorioamnionitis (n=58, 71%).

Almost all studies included a positive blood and/or CSF culture in their outcome definition for sepsis (n=75, 91%). Of these, 18 (22% of all studies) also included clinical features or clinical suspicion of sepsis. One study used a consultant neonatologist’s clinical diagnosis of sepsis,76 one study used the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision criteria for sepsis,77 and in three studies the outcome was unclear.

Model characteristics

The 82 included studies performed 109 evaluations validating 44 distinct models (Table 3).22–25,32,33,40,46,47,49–51,54,56,57,63,68,72,76–78,81,83,86,87,90,92,98–101,103–113 The most frequently validated model was the Hematological Scoring System by Rodwell et al. (n=32, 39% of studies; including studies that made minor modifications to the original model).112 Most models were only validated in one study (n=34, 77% of models).

A total of 135 predictors of sepsis were included across all models, of which 82 were clinical parameters (signs, symptoms or risk factors) and 53 were laboratory parameters (see supplementary appendix). The median number of predictors per model was 6 (range 2 to 110, IQR 4). 14 models (32%) included only clinical parameters, 12 models (27%) included only laboratory parameters, and 18 models (41%) included both. The commonest laboratory parameters were white cell count (n=17 models, 39%), C-reactive protein (CRP) (n=16 models, 36%) and platelet count (n=15 models, 34%). The commonest clinical parameters were neonatal fever (n=13 models, 30%) and gestational age (n=11 models, 25%).

Most models were developed using logistic regression (n=16 models, 36%) (often with stepwise selection to select predictors) or consisted of a scoring system based on univariable predictor performance or literature review and expert opinion (n=10 models, 23%).

Model performance

Model performance was principally reported using sensitivity and/or specificity (with or without a confusion matrix); only 4 studies (5%) did not report either metric. 32 studies (39%) reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Less frequent methods of quantifying performance included predictive values, likelihood ratios, accuracy, change in antibiotic use, and mortality statistics. Across all 109 evaluations, median sensitivity was 81% (range 3% to 100%) and median specificity was 83% (range 11% to 100%).

Performance stratified by clinical vs. laboratory parameters

In models containing both clinical and laboratory parameters (n=24 evaluations), median sensitivity was 73% (range 3% to 100%) and median specificity was 80% (range 18% to 98%). In models containing only clinical parameters (n=23 evaluations), median sensitivity was 67% (range 3% to 100%) and median specificity was 72% (range 11% to 99%). In models containing only laboratory parameters (n=62 evaluations), median sensitivity was 83% (range 9% to 100%) and median specificity was 86% (range 33% to 100%).

Performance stratified by target population

Models validated in a population with existing clinical suspicion of sepsis (due to signs and symptoms and/or presence of maternal risk factors for sepsis) had a median sensitivity of 82% (range 3% to 100%) and median specificity of 84% (range 18% to 100%) (n=75 evaluations). In comparison, models evaluated in the general population had a median sensitivity of 77% (range 15% to 100%) and median specificity of 80% (range 11% to 100%) (n=34 evaluations).

Performance stratified by sepsis timing

In models developed to diagnose both EOS and LOS (n=59 evaluations), median sensitivity was 82% (range 3% to 100%) and median specificity was 85% (range 33% to 100%). In models to diagnose only EOS, median sensitivity was 82% (range 9% to 100%) and median specificity was 82% (range 11% to 98%) (n=29 evaluations). In models to diagnose only LOS, median sensitivity was 57% (range 3% to 100%) and median specificity was 75% (range 18% to 99%) (n=21 evaluations).

DISCUSSION

Our scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis in LMICs. Previous reviews of CPMs to diagnose neonatal sepsis have been published, but we included more studies than were identified in existing reviews despite them additionally including studies from high-income countries.11–14 The breadth of literature highlights the need for, and academic interest in, effective risk stratification for neonatal sepsis in LMICs.

Several common themes emerged from our review. First, 99% of studies were conducted in middle- income countries, with only one study including neonates born in a low-income country,98 and no studies conducted exclusively in a low-income country. Furthermore, fewer studies were conducted in the African region than any other WHO region, despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis and slower progress in neonatal mortality in these countries.114,115 Two thirds of models required access to at least basic laboratory facilities. Access to laboratory facilities is limited in many low-resource settings or turnaround times are too long to usefully inform management.116

Second, although many CPMs have been validated in LMICs, 78% of studies were conducted in neonatal intensive care or special care units and only 29% were validated in a population of neonates that includes infants without existing suspicion of sepsis. A substantial benefit of CPMs for neonatal sepsis in LMICs lies in their ability to promote early, targeted antibiotic therapy in an undifferentiated population of neonates, reducing antibiotic overuse and the resultant antimicrobial resistance and adverse neonatal outcomes.6 Whilst diagnostic decision support in high-risk neonates is useful, models are needed that can be applied at the time of birth to facilitate the rapid antimicrobial therapy required to reduce morbidity and mortality from EOS.7

Third, description of model performance and clinical implications was highly variable between studies. Most studies only presented sensitivity and specificity at arbitrarily selected classification thresholds; just over one third of studies reported easily comparable global metrics such as AUC. Furthermore, few studies included practical discussion of how the proposed models could be integrated into routine neonatal care in LMICs. This includes how the probability or score can be calculated by healthcare workers (e.g. using a paper proforma or a computer-based system). Most models were developed using logistic regression, but authors often simplify the final model to present a scoring system where each predictor is assigned an integer score. This benefits interpretation and application but can negatively impact the resulting predictions, particularly if continuous predictors are categorised.8

One solution could be to implement models using app or web-based interfaces for clinicians such as the Neotree platform, which consists of an android app that also includes data visualisation, linkage and export capabilities.117 This would also aid implementation of more flexible classification methods, such as the artificial neural network proposed by Helguera-Repetto et al.47 Other considerations that are rarely discussed is how management decisions should be made based on model predictions, such as appropriate classification thresholds and how these can be incorporated into a wider sepsis management pathway within neonatal units. These oversights could be addressed if authors adhere to the TRIPOD checklist, which specifically includes ‘implications’ of the model as a checklist item.21

Finally, three quarters of models were only validated in one study in a LMIC, often only in the derivation cohort (internal validation). This may lead to overoptimistic performance results due to overfitting.8 Several authors caution against the current focus on developing new models, and advocate for further validation (including external validation) of promising existing models.118 Additionally, few studies included in our review assessed calibration performance of their models, which is an especially important consideration when models are intended for decision support.119

Several limitations of our review should be considered. First, we included only published studies. It may be that individual neonatal units or networks have developed their own clinical prediction models or tools that are in local use but have not been published and therefore would not have been identified by our search. Centres may use existing clinical prediction models without publishing performance data, particularly if studies show poor model performance. Second, there was significant heterogeneity in study populations, definitions of sepsis, and classification thresholds, which makes comparing model performance between studies particularly challenging. Despite the high incidence of neonatal sepsis globally, there is no internationally accepted consensus definition of neonatal sepsis.120 A systematic review of model performance in specific populations and for specific definitions of sepsis would help to address this. Given the vast number of model variations presented in included studies, and the often arbitrarily selected classification thresholds at which model performance is reported, it is impractical for a single review to be completely comprehensive and there is necessarily a degree of selective reporting in our review. Finally, we included only studies published in English or Spanish and were unable to obtain full texts for 36 potentially eligible studies despite contacting authors. The nature of scientific publishing in LMICs means that studies are not always published in journals indexed in major biomedical databases. We identified 13 of the 82 included studies outwith our primary database searches through citation analysis and reference lists only (especially for studies published in India), which raises the possibility of retrieval bias influencing our review.

CONTRIBUTORS

FF and MH conceived the idea for this review. SRN developed the review protocol and all authors reviewed and approved it before publication. SRN and SS performed the literature searches and extracted the data. DM, HG, MZ, SRN and SS screened the records. FF, MH, GC, KLD and MCB supervised the review process and provided clinical expertise for the manuscript. MCB translated records from Spanish and provided statistical advice. All authors critically edited and approved the final manuscript.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

FF and MH are trustees of Neotree, a UK registered charity that provides technology, software information, education and support to healthcare workers and medical practitioners throughout England and Wales, Malawi and Zimbabwe (charity number: 1186748). All other authors declare no competing interests.

DATA SHARING

Extracted data and code used to synthesise results will be uploaded at publication. A list of all records identified through database searches is available on request.

Data Availability

Extracted data and code used to synthesise results will be uploaded at publication. A list of all records identified through database searches is available on request.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Heather Chesters (Deputy Librarian at the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health Library) for her advice and guidance when developing the search strategy for this review. This review was conducted without specific funding support.

Footnotes

  • Correction of typographical errors; supplementary material updated in preparation for publication.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Wilson CB,
    2. Nizet V,
    3. Maldonado YA,
    4. Remington JS,
    5. Klein JO
    Nizet V, Klein JO. Bacterial sepsis and meningitis. In: Wilson CB, Nizet V, Maldonado YA, Remington JS, Klein JO, eds. Remington and Klein’s Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2016: 217–71.
  2. 2.↵
    Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet (London, England) 2020; 395(10219): 200–11.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Shane AL, Sanchez PJ, Stoll BJ. Neonatal sepsis. Lancet 2017; 390(10104): 1770–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Zaidi AK, Huskins WC, Thaver D, Bhutta ZA, Abbas Z, Goldmann DA. Hospital-acquired neonatal infections in developing countries. Lancet 2005; 365(9465): 1175–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Wynn JL, Wong HR, Shanley TP, Bizzarro MJ, Saiman L, Polin RA. Time for a neonatal-specific consensus definition for sepsis. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2014; 15(6): 523–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Esaiassen E, Fjalstad JW, Juvet LK, van den Anker JN, Klingenberg C. Antibiotic exposure in neonates and early adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2017; 72(7): 1858–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Neonatal infection: antibiotics for prevention and treatment (NG195). 2024 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng195 (accessed 26 Aug 2024).
  8. 8.↵
    Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. 2 ed. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2019.
  9. 9.↵
    World Health Organization. Human resource strategies to improve newborn care in health facilities in low- and middle-income countries. Geneva, 2020.
  10. 10.↵
    Thomson KM, Dyer C, Liu F, et al. Effects of antibiotic resistance, drug target attainment, bacterial pathogenicity and virulence, and antibiotic access and affordability on outcomes in neonatal sepsis: an international microbiology and drug evaluation prospective substudy (BARNARDS). The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2021; 21(12): 1677–88.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Verstraete EH, Blot K, Mahieu L, Vogelaers D, Blot S. Prediction models for neonatal health care-associated sepsis: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2015; 135(4): e1002–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    Sofouli GA, Kanellopoulou A, Vervenioti A, Dimitriou G, Gkentzi D. Predictive Scores for Late- Onset Neonatal Sepsis as an Early Diagnostic and Antimicrobial Stewardship Tool: What Have We Done So Far? Antibiotics (Basel) 2022; 11(7).
  13. 13.
    Sahu P, Raj Stanly EA, Simon Lewis LE, Prabhu K, Rao M, Kunhikatta V. Prediction modelling in the early detection of neonatal sepsis. World J Pediatr 2022; 18(3): 160–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Fung A, Shafiq Y, Driker S, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Sign Algorithms to Identify Sepsis in Young Infants Aged 0 to 59 Days: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2024; 154(Suppl 1).
  15. 15.↵
    Neal SR, Musorowegomo D, Gannon H, et al. Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2020; 10(8): e039712.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Joanna Briggs Institute. Development of a scoping review protocol. 2019. https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/display/MANUAL/11.2+Development+of+a+scoping+review+protocol (accessed 04 Apr 2020).
  17. 17.↵
    Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018; 169(7): 467–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    The World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. 2020. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed 21 Aug 2020).
  19. 19.↵
    The EndNote Team. EndNote. EndNote 21 ed. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate; 2013.
  20. 20.↵
    Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan - a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 2016; 5(1): 210.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162(1): W1–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Abiramalatha T, Santhanam S, Mammen JJ, et al. Utility of neutrophil volume conductivity scatter (VCS) parameter changes as sepsis screen in neonates. Journal of Perinatology 2016; 36(9): 733–8.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.
    Afjeiee SA, Golnabi A, Rafiee Tabatabaei S. Determining the Frequency of Neonatal Sepsis Based on Premature Rupture of Membrane (PROM) -Scoring System at Mahdieh Hospital in Tehran. Pajoohande 2008; 13(2): 159–65.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    Ahire N, Patil SV, Marakwad D, Gaikwad R, Singh5 J. To Study the Hematological Indices and CRP in the Screening of Neonatal Sepsis. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research 2022; 14(1): 132–8.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Ahmed Z, Ghafoor T, Waqar T, Ali S, Aziz S, Mahmud S. Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein and haematological parameters in neonatal sepsis. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2005; 15(3): 152–6.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.
    Al-Lawama M, AlZaatreh A, Elrajabi R, Abdelhamid S, Badran E. Prolonged rupture of membranes, neonatal outcomes and management guidelines. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research 2019; 11(5): 360–6.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Amir N, Ahmad M, Akhtar K, Hassan MJ. Hematological Scoring System and its Correlation with Blood Culture, C-reactive Protein, and Micro-erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate in Early Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis. Journal of Applied Hematology 2023; 14: 225–9.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.
    Annam V, Medarametla V, Chakkirala N. Evaluation of cord blood - Haematological Scoring System as an early predictive screening method for the detection of early onset neonatal sepsis. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2015; 9(9): SC04–6.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.
    Beandda AS, Doctor KM. The comparison between management recommendations of the Neonatal Early Onset Sepsis Calculator and CDC/AAP Guidelines among culture-proven early onset sepsis admitted at University of East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center from January 2013 to December 2017. Health Sciences Journal 2018; 8(1).
  30. 30.
    Bhalodia MJ, Hippargi SB, Patil MM. Role of hematological scoring system in diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Journal of Clinical Neonatology 2017; 6(3): 144–47.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.
    Buch A, Srivastava V, Kumar H, Jadhav PS. EVALUATION OF HAEMATOLOGICAL PROFILE IN EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF CLINICALLY SUSPECTED CASES OF NEONATAL SEPSIS. International Journal of Basic and Applied Medical Sciences 2011; 1(1): 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Bülbül A, Bülbül L, Zübarioğlu U, Ocak S, Uslu S. The Comparison of the Management Models for Identifying the Risk of Serious Bacterial Infection in Newborn Infants with a Newly Developed Scale. JAREM 2020; 10(1): 70–4.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Celik IH, Demirel G, Sukhachev D, Erdeve O, Dilmen U. Neutrophil volume, conductivity and scatter parameters with effective modeling of molecular activity statistical program gives better results in neonatal sepsis. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 2013; 35(1): 82–7.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.
    Chitra W, Lubis BM, Siregar OR, Hasibuan BS, Lubis IND, Nafianti S. Role of Modified Hematologic Scoring System and Platelet Indices in Diagnosing Neonatal Sepsis. Perinatology 2022; 23(1): 22–8.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.
    de Souza CG. Variabilidade da frequência cardíaca na sepse neonatal [Doutor]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo; 2015.
  36. 36.
    Debroy A, Joshi D, Sinha TD. Reappraisal of the Haematological Scoring System (HSS) for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis in a remote geographical location of North East India. Indian Journal of Pathology and Oncology 2016; 3: 366–71.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    Derbala SG, M. HN, Eldin Hasan BB, F. E-SH. Performance of the Hematological Scoring System for Early Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of a Developing Country. Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine 2017; 3(4): E429.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.
    Dutta NR, Medhi P, Hazarika R. Haematological Scoring System (HSS) in early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis: a study from tertiary care hospital from North East India. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 2016; 5(52): 3459–66.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.
    El-Said SAAM, Salama KM, El-Din El Hawary IMB, Samy RM, Akmal DM. Diagnostic Value of Neutrophil CD64, CD11b and Hematological Scoring System in Neonatal Sepsis. African Journal of Biological Sciences (South Africa) 2024; 6: 323–37.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Fitriana L, Ramadanti A. Scoring model to predict early-onset bacterial sepsis at Dr. Mohammad Hoesin Hospital, Palembang. Paediatrica Indonesiana(Paediatrica Indonesiana) 2023; 63(1): 29–36.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Godoy Torales GM, Rienzi Grassi RR, León Rodas LA, et al. Sepsis neonatal en embarazos a término con corioamnionitis clínica, utilidad de la escala de sepsis. Revista del Nacional (Itauguá) 2020; 12: 71–90.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.
    Gupta C, Makkar M, Mahajan NC. Haematological scoring system: A screening test for early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion 2011; 27(4): 264.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Gupta K, Bhaskar V, Narayanan A, Batra P. Re-visiting micro ESR as a screening tool for neonatal sepsis. Trop Doct 2022; 52(3): 382–5.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.
    Hassan HR, Gohil JR, Desai R, Mehta RR, Chaudhary VP. Correlation of blood culture results with the sepsis score and sepsis screen in the diagnosis of early-onset neonatal septicemia. Journal of Clinical Neonatology 2016; 5(3): 193–8.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.
    He Y, Chen J, Liu Z, Yu J. Efficacy and safety of applying a neonatal early-onset sepsis risk calculator in China. J Paediatr Child Health 2020; 56(2): 237–43.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    He Y, Du WX, Jiang HY, et al. Multiplex cytokine profiling identifies interleukin-27 as a novel biomarker for neonatal early onset sepsis. Shock 2017; 47(2): 140–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Helguera-Repetto AC, Soto-Ramírez MD, Villavicencio-Carrisoza O, et al. Neonatal Sepsis Diagnosis Decision-Making Based on Artificial Neural Networks. Front Pediatr 2020; 8: 525.
  48. 48.
    Himasree M, Varsha MH, Hymavathi KTL, Induja K. A Study of Umbilical Cord Blood Haematological Parameters in High Risk Pregnant Women in Predicting Early Onset Neonatal Sepsis. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research 2024; 15: 109–17.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Hu J, Qin X. Bacteria profiles and risk factors for proven early-onset sepsis in preterm neonates. Saudi Med J 2021; 42(12): 1281–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.
    Huang Y, Yu X, Li W, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting late- onset sepsis in preterm infants on the basis of thyroid function and other risk factors: Mixed retrospective and prospective cohort study. J Adv Res 2020; 24: 43–51.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    Husada D, Chanthavanich P, Pengsaa K, et al. Predictive model for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2010; 16(2): S49.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.
    Ibrahim MMM, El-Sewefy DA, Ibrahim MJA, Pessar SA. Diagnostic Evaluation of Modified Hematological Sepsis Score and Presepsin in Neonatal Sepsis. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 2023; 116(Supplement_1).
  53. 53.
    Ikhsaniatun F, Hidayah D, Moelyo AG. Early-Onset Sepsis Online Calculator as a Predictor of Early-Onset Sepsis in Neonates Born at ≥ 34 Weeks of Gestation. Perinatology 2022; 22(4): 245–51.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Iqbal F, Chandra P, Lewis LES, et al. Application of artificial intelligence to predict the sepsis in neonates admitted in neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Neonatal Nursing 2024; 30(2): 141–7.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.
    Jadhav S, Misra R, Vyawahare C, Angadi K, Gandham N, Ghosh P. Role of sepsis screen in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Medical Journal of Dr DY Patil University 2013; 6: 254.
  56. 56.↵
    James J, Tewari VV, Jain N. Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Tool ’STOPS’ and Serum Procalcitonin for Optimizing Antibiotic Therapy in Neonates Born at ≥ 28 Weeks of Gestation with Neonatal Sepsis. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2021; 13(1): e2021019.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Kar S, Dube R, Mahapatro S, Kar S. Role of Clinical Signs in the Diagnosis of Late-onset Neonatal Sepsis and Formulation of Clinical Score. Asian Journal of Critical Care 2010; 6: 10–4.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.
    Khair KB, Rahman MA, Sultana T, Roy CK, Rahman MQ, Ahmed AN. Early diagnosis of neonatal septicemia by hematologic scoring system, C-reactive protein and serum haptoglobin. Mymensingh Med J 2012; 21(1): 85–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.
    Krishnamurthy V, Thandaveshwar D, Doreswamy SM. Modified hematological sepsis score in early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2017; 5(8): 3573–7.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.
    Kudawla M, Dutta S, Narang A. Validation of a clinical score for the diagnosis of late onset neonatal septicemia in babies weighing 1000-2500 g. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 2008; 54(1): 66–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.
    Liestiadi D, Azlin E, Nafianti S. A hematologic scoring system and C-reactive protein compared to blood cultures for diagnosing bacterial neonatal sepsis. Paediatrica Indonesiana 2017; 57(2): 70–5.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.
    Lloyd LG, Dramowski A, Bekker A, Malou N, Ferreyra C, Van Weissenbruch MM. Performance Comparison of Infection Prediction Scores in a South African Neonatal Unit: A Retrospective Case- Control Study. Front Pediatr 2022; 10: 830510.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    Lloyd LG, van Weissenbruch MM, Dramoswski A, Gleeson B, Ferreyra C, Bekker A. Development and internal validation of a Neonatal Healthcare-associated infectiOn Prediction score (NeoHoP score) for very low birthweight infants in low-resource settings: a retrospective case- control study. Bmj Paediatrics Open 2023; 7(1).
  64. 64.
    Mahale R, Dutta S, Ahluwalia J, Kishore SS, Narang A. Baseline illness severity does not alter accuracy of neonatal sepsis screen. American Journal of Perinatology 2010; 27(4): 327–32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. 65.
    Makkar M, Gupta C, Pathak R, Garg S, Mahajan NC. Performance evaluation of hematologic scoring system in early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Journal of Clinical Neonatology 2013; 2(1): 25–9.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Malini KP, Padma S, Srivani N, Kumari C, Kumar OS, Rao JV. Application and correlation of hematological scoring system and serum prolactin levels in early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis 3 year study. International Archives of Integrated Medicine 2016; 3(11): 36–45.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.
    Manvitha G, Geetha K, Padmaja GJV, Devi AM. Correlation of Haematological Scoring System with C - Reactive Protein and Blood Culture in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Neonatal Sepsis in A Tertiary Care Hospital, Hyderabad. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research 2023; 14: 1579–92.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Matsushita FY, Krebs VLJ, de Carvalho WB. Complete blood count and C-reactive protein to predict positive blood culture among neonates using machine learning algorithms. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2023; 78: 100148.
  69. 69.
    Meirina F, Lubis B, Sembiring T, Rosdiana N, Siregar OR. Hematological scoring system as an early diagnostic tool for neonatal sepsis. Paediatrica Indonesiana 2015; 55(6): 315–21.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.
    Mishra KN, Mishra RK. Evaluation and Role of Basic Hematological Scoring System in Early detection of Neonatal Sepsis. International Journal of Medical and Health Research 2019; 5(11): 109–13.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.
    Mohamed HE, Akl HK, El Banna EA. CD64: diagnostic accuracy compared with the hematologic scoring system and CRP in neonatal sepsis. The Egyptian Journal of Haematology 2012; 37(4).
  72. 72.↵
    Mondal SK, Nag DR, Bandyopadhyay R, Chakraborty D, Sinha SK. Neonatal sepsis: Role of a battery of immunohematological tests in early diagnosis. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2012; 2(1): 43–7.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.
    Nabi SN, Basak AK, Kamruzzaman M, et al. Performance of Haematological Parameters in Early Diagnosis of Clinically Suspected Neonatal Sepsis. Mymensingh Med J 2019; 28(1): 193–9.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.
    Nair A, George v, Mohandas L. Utility of Hematological Scoring System in Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis. 2020.
  75. 75.
    Narasimha A, Harendra Kumar ML. Significance of Hematological Scoring System (HSS) in early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion 2011; 27(1): 14–7.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    Neal SR, Fitzgerald F, Chimhuya S, Heys M, Cortina-Borja M, Chimhini G. Diagnosing early- onset neonatal sepsis in low-resource settings: development of a multivariable prediction model. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2023; 108(8): 608–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    Nguyen TM, Poh KL, Chong SL, Lee JH. Effective diagnosis of sepsis in critically ill children using probabilistic graphical model. Translational Pediatrics 2023; 12(4): 538–51.
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.↵
    Okascharoen C, Sirinavin S, Thakkinstian A, Kitayaporn D, Supapanachart S. A bedside prediction-scoring model for late-onset neonatal sepsis. Journal of Perinatology 2005; 25(12): 778–83.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.
    Padhy S, Thandaveshwara D, Doreswamy SM, Krishnamurthy V. Sepscore - An Improved Armament in the Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2023; 17: EC05–EC7.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.
    Pinto MC, Bueno AC, Vieira AA. Implementation of a protocol proposed by the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency for antibiotic use in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2013; 89(5): 450–5.
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    Pokhylko V, Cherniavska Y, Adamchuk N, Tsvirenko S, Klimchuk Y. CLINICAL PREDICTION OF EARLY ONSET SEPSIS IN PRETERM NEONATES. Wiad Lek 2020; 73(10): 2219–23.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.
    Pramana KP, Kardana IM, Nilawati GAP. Diagnosis accuracy of Hematological Scoring System in early identification of neonatal sepsis. Bali Medical Journal 2016; 5(3): 139–44.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    Pukhtinskaya M, Estrin V. The Early Diagnostics of the Sepsis of Newborns on Mechanical Ventilation. SciTech Immuno-Microbiology; 2021; Online; 2021.
  84. 84.
    Raguindin PFN, Samonte MVA, Dans LF. Bedside prediction scoring or emergent diagnosis of late onset neonatal sepsis. Pediatric Infectious Disease Society of the Philippines 2014: 48–58.
  85. 85.
    Reyna Figueroa J, Briseño-Vázquez R, Ortiz- Ibarra F. Validación de la escala NOSEP-1 para el diagnóstico de sepsis nosocomial en recién nacidos prematuros menores de 1500g. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 2005; 62: 321–8.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    Rosenberg RE, Ahmed AS, Saha SK, et al. Nosocomial sepsis risk score for preterm infants in low-resource settings. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 2010; 56(2): 82–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  87. 87.↵
    Selimovic A, Skokic F, Bazardzanovic M, Selimovic Z. The predictive score for early-onset neonatal sepsis. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 2010; 52(2): 139–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  88. 88.
    Shah HY, Jha BM. Early diagnosis and evaluation of neonatal septicemia by hematological scoring system. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health 2019.
  89. 89.
    Sharma R, Bombeshwar V, Varma R, Neral A, Gupta C. Role of Modified Rodwell’s Haematological Scoring System in Early Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis: A Study in Tertiary Care Centre of Central India. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research 2024; 16: 539–43.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    Shuai X, Li X, Wu Y. Prediction for late-onset sepsis in preterm infants based on data from East China. Frontiers in Pediatrics 2022; 10: 924014.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.
    Shukla G, Goyal P, Arya S. Diagnostic Accuracy of Haematological Scoring System in Paired cord Blood and Peripheral Venous Blood for early Detection of Neonatal Sepsis - A Prospective Analytical Study. Journal of Nepal Paediatric Society 2023; 43: 15–21.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    Singh SA, Dutta S, Narang A. Predictive clinical scores for diagnosis of late onset neonatal septicemia. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 2003; 49(4): 235–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  93. 93.
    Sriram R. Correlation of blood culture results with the sepsis score and the sepsis screen in the diagnosis of neonatal septicemia. International Journal of Biological and Medical Research 2011; 2(1): 360–8.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.
    Swarnkar K, Swarnkar M. A study of early onset neonatal sepsis with special reference to sepsis screening parameters in a tertiary care centre of rural India. Internet Journal of Infectious Diseases 2012; 10(1): 2.
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.
    Thermiany AS, Retayasa W, Kardana M, Lila IN. Diagnostic accuracy of septic markers for neonatal sepsis. Paediatrica Indonesiana 2008; 48(5): 299–305.
    OpenUrl
  96. 96.
    Varughese PM. Modified hematological sepsis score: an easy and cost effective measure to combat neonatal septicemia. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2020; 8(2): 517–23.
    OpenUrl
  97. 97.
    Vinay BS, Girish GN, Adhikari S, Hugara S. Evaluation of Septic Screen as a Diagnostic Tool for Neonatal Sepsis in a Tertiary Hospital at Mysore. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences 2015; 3(2G): 1005–10.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    Weber MW, Carlin JB, Gatchalian S, et al. Predictors of neonatal sepsis in developing countries. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2003; 22(8): 711–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  99. 99.
    Wu M, Deng Y, Wang X, He B, Wei F, Zhang Y. Development of risk prediction nomogram for neonatal sepsis in Group B Streptococcus-colonized mothers: a retrospective study. Scientific Reports 2024; 14(1): 5629.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.
    Yadav BB, Maini B, Kumari N, Indu A. Assessment of platelet indices as a biomarker for diagnosis neonatal sepsis. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research 2023; 14: 1422–7.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.↵
    Yin Z, Chen Y, Zhong W, et al. A Novel Algorithm With Paired Predictive Indexes to Stratify the Risk Levels of Neonates With Invasive Bacterial Infections: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2022; 41(4): e149–e55.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.
    Zarkesh M, Hashemian H, Momtazbakhsh M, Rostami T. Assessment of febrile neonates according to low risk criteria for serious bacterial infection. Iran J Pediatr 2011; 21(4): 436–40.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    Zhang Y, Zhang C, Shu J, Zhang F. Establishment and Validation of Models Based on Clinical Parameters/Symptoms for Diagnostic and Prognostic Assessment of Neonatal Sepsis. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics 2023; 33.
  104. 104.
    Baker MD, Bell LM, Avner JR. Outpatient management without antibiotics of fever in selected infants. The New England journal of medicine 1993; 329(20): 1437–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  105. 105.
    Baskin MN, O’Rourke EJ, Fleisher GR. Outpatient treatment of febrile infants 28 to 89 days of age with intramuscular administration of ceftriaxone. J Pediatr 1992; 120(1): 22–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  106. 106.
    Bekhof J, Reitsma JB, Kok JH, Van Straaten IH. Clinical signs to identify late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. Eur J Pediatr 2013; 172(4): 501–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.
    Kuzniewicz MW, Puopolo KM, Fischer A, et al. A quantitative, risk-based approach to the management of neonatal early-onset sepsis. JAMA Pediatrics 2017; 171(4): 365–71.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.
    Mahieu LM, De Dooy JJ, Cossey VR, et al. Internal and external validation of the NOSEP prediction score for nosocomial sepsis in neonates. Crit Care Med 2002; 30(7): 1459–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  109. 109.
    Mahieu LM, De Muynck AO, De Dooy JJ, Laroche SM, Van Acker KJ. Prediction of nosocomial sepsis in neonates by means of a computer-weighted bedside scoring system (NOSEP score). Crit Care Med 2000; 28(6): 2026–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  110. 110.
    Powell KR. Evaluation and management of febrile infants younger than 60 days of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990; 9(3): 153–7.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  111. 111.
    Puopolo KM, Benitz WE, Zaoutis TE, et al. Management of Neonates Born at ≥35 0/7 Weeks’ Gestation With Suspected or Proven Early-Onset Bacterial Sepsis. Pediatrics 2018; 142(6).
  112. 112.↵
    Rodwell RL, Leslie AL, Tudehope DI. Early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis using a hematologic scoring system. Journal of Pediatrics 1988; 112(5): 761–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  113. 113.↵
    Takkar VP, Bhakoo ON, Narang A. Scoring system for the prediction of early neonatal infections. Indian Pediatr 1974; 11(9): 597–600.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  114. 114.↵
    Golding N, Burstein R, Longbottom J, et al. Mapping under-5 and neonatal mortality in Africa, 2000–15: a baseline analysis for the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 2017; 390(10108): 2171–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    Li J, Shen L, Qian K. Global, regional, and national incidence and mortality of neonatal sepsis and other neonatal infections, 1990-2019. Front Public Health 2023; 11: 1139832.
    OpenUrl
  116. 116.↵
    Chimhini G, Chimhuya S, Madzudzo L, et al. Auditing use of antibiotics in Zimbabwean neonates. Infection Prevention in Practice 2020; 2(2): 100046.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    Heys M, Kesler E, Sassoon Y, et al. Development and implementation experience of a learning healthcare system for facility based newborn care in low resource settings: The Neotree. Learning Health Systems 2022; e10310.
  118. 118.↵
    Van Calster B, Steyerberg EW, Wynants L, van Smeden M. There is no such thing as a validated prediction model. BMC Medicine 2023; 21(1): 70.
    OpenUrl
  119. 119.↵
    Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med 2019; 17(1): 230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    Molloy EJ, Wynn JL, Bliss J, et al. Neonatal sepsis: need for consensus definition, collaboration and core outcomes. Pediatr Res 2020; 88(1): 2–4.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted September 13, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Clinical prediction models to diagnose neonatal sepsis in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review
Samuel R Neal, Sarah Sturrock, David Musorowegomo, Hannah Gannon, Michele Zaman, Mario Cortina-Borja, Kirsty Le Doare, Michelle Heys, Gwen Chimhini, Felicity Fitzgerald
medRxiv 2024.09.05.24313133; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.05.24313133
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area