Cargando…

Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Determining which babies should receive antibiotics for potential early onset sepsis (EOS) is challenging. We performed a meta-analysis quantifying how many EOS cases might be ‘missed’ using the Kaiser Permanente electronic calculator, compared with National Institute for Health and Care...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pettinger, Katherine J., Mayers, Katie, McKechnie, Liz, Phillips, Bob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32140666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.11.020
_version_ 1783501963009196032
author Pettinger, Katherine J.
Mayers, Katie
McKechnie, Liz
Phillips, Bob
author_facet Pettinger, Katherine J.
Mayers, Katie
McKechnie, Liz
Phillips, Bob
author_sort Pettinger, Katherine J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Determining which babies should receive antibiotics for potential early onset sepsis (EOS) is challenging. We performed a meta-analysis quantifying how many EOS cases might be ‘missed’ using the Kaiser Permanente electronic calculator, compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out for studies citing the article in which the calculator was publicised. Studies were eligible if they presented data evaluating the calculator, either by retrospective case review or prospective cohort study. The primary outcome measure was numbers of culture positive EOS cases where the calculator did not recommend empirical antibiotics, but NICE guidelines would have. Data were pooled using a random effect meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed using data from studies of babies exposed to chorioamnionitis. FINDINGS: Eleven studies were included. There were a total of 75 EOS cases across the studies and a minimum of 14 (best case scenario), and a maximum of 22 (worst case scenario) cases where use of the calculator would have resulted in delayed or missed treatment, compared to if NICE guidelines had been followed. The probability of missed/delayed treatment for an EOS case were best case 0.19 [95% confidence intervals 0.11 – 0.29], worst case 0.31 [95% CI 0.17 – 0.49]. The probability of missing cases was significantly more in babies exposed to chorioamnionitis INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of EOS cases were ‘missed’ by the calculator. Further evaluation of the calculator is recommended before it is introduced into UK clinical practice. FUNDING: None.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7046522
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70465222020-03-05 Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis Pettinger, Katherine J. Mayers, Katie McKechnie, Liz Phillips, Bob EClinicalMedicine Research paper BACKGROUND: Determining which babies should receive antibiotics for potential early onset sepsis (EOS) is challenging. We performed a meta-analysis quantifying how many EOS cases might be ‘missed’ using the Kaiser Permanente electronic calculator, compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out for studies citing the article in which the calculator was publicised. Studies were eligible if they presented data evaluating the calculator, either by retrospective case review or prospective cohort study. The primary outcome measure was numbers of culture positive EOS cases where the calculator did not recommend empirical antibiotics, but NICE guidelines would have. Data were pooled using a random effect meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed using data from studies of babies exposed to chorioamnionitis. FINDINGS: Eleven studies were included. There were a total of 75 EOS cases across the studies and a minimum of 14 (best case scenario), and a maximum of 22 (worst case scenario) cases where use of the calculator would have resulted in delayed or missed treatment, compared to if NICE guidelines had been followed. The probability of missed/delayed treatment for an EOS case were best case 0.19 [95% confidence intervals 0.11 – 0.29], worst case 0.31 [95% CI 0.17 – 0.49]. The probability of missing cases was significantly more in babies exposed to chorioamnionitis INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of EOS cases were ‘missed’ by the calculator. Further evaluation of the calculator is recommended before it is introduced into UK clinical practice. FUNDING: None. Elsevier 2019-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7046522/ /pubmed/32140666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.11.020 Text en © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research paper
Pettinger, Katherine J.
Mayers, Katie
McKechnie, Liz
Phillips, Bob
Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Sensitivity of the Kaiser Permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort sensitivity of the kaiser permanente early-onset sepsis calculator: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32140666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.11.020
work_keys_str_mv AT pettingerkatherinej sensitivityofthekaiserpermanenteearlyonsetsepsiscalculatorasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mayerskatie sensitivityofthekaiserpermanenteearlyonsetsepsiscalculatorasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mckechnieliz sensitivityofthekaiserpermanenteearlyonsetsepsiscalculatorasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT phillipsbob sensitivityofthekaiserpermanenteearlyonsetsepsiscalculatorasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis