This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Infectious Diseases  • Bacterial Infections  • Pathology & Laboratory Medicine  • Neonatology and Infant Care  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Systematic Review of Modern Diagnostic Tests for Neonatal Sepsis

Arinder Malik, MBBS, MD; Charles P. S. Hui, MD, FRCPC; Ross A. Pennie, MD, FRCPC; Haresh Kirpalani, BM, MSc, FRCP

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:511-516.

Objective  To systematically review the accuracy of modern laboratory tests for the diagnosis of serious bacterial infection in newborns.

Methods  The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the keywords newborn, infection, sepsis, and diagnosis. We included studies published from 1995 through 2001 that included infants younger than 90 days with proven bacterial growth in a sample from a sterile site. Whenever possible, relevant data were extracted to calculate likelihood ratios (LRs) for whether each test can diagnose a serious bacterial infection. Two independent reviewers selected and reviewed the articles (interobserver agreement, = 0.80). All disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results  Of the 137 citations we retrieved, 37 articles met the inclusion criteria; 17 studies, evaluating 11 different tests, met the highest methodological criteria. The most commonly evaluated test was interleukin 6 (IL-6) level (n = 7 studies). The remaining tests were each evaluated in no more than 3 studies. Positive LRs ranged from 1.5 to . Six individual tests examined in 8 studies had LRs of more than 10 (range, 12.5-). Combined tests also had a wide range of LRs (3.4-9.9). All studies were performed in single medical centers and had small sample sizes, making recommendations according to gestational age criteria difficult.

Conclusions  We found few methodologically rigorous studies of the accuracy of laboratory tests for the diagnosis of bacterial infection in newborns; in a significant proportion of studies, the accuracy of the tests could not be independently determined because of a lack of adequate data. There was marked heterogeneity in sample selection and cutoff levels for diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. A few tests showed promising accuracy, but there are insufficient data to support their confident use as clinical tools.

From the Division of Neonatology (Dr Kirpalani) and the Departments of Pediatrics (Drs Malik, Pennie, and Kirpalani) and Pathology and Molecular Medicine (Dr Hui), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

RELATED ARTICLE

Diagnostic Testing of the Febrile Neonate: It Is Time to Collaborate
Nathan Kuppermann
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(6):508-509.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Diagnostic Use of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) in Assessment of Neonatal Sepsis
Weitkamp and Aschner
NeoReviews 2005;6:e508-e515.
FULL TEXT  

Heart Rate Characteristics: Novel Physiomarkers to Predict Neonatal Infection and Death
Griffin et al.
Pediatrics 2005;116:1070-1074.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Does leucocytosis identify bacterial infections in febrile neonates presenting to the emergency department?
Brown et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2005;22:256-259.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Heart Rate Characteristics and Laboratory Tests in Neonatal Sepsis
Griffin et al.
Pediatrics 2005;115:937-941.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Diagnosis of Neonatal Sepsis: A Clinical and Laboratory Challenge
Chiesa et al.
Clin. Chem. 2004;50:279-287.
FULL TEXT  

Diagnostic Testing of the Febrile Neonate: It Is Time to Collaborate
Kuppermann
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:508-509.
FULL TEXT