↓ Skip to main content

Adverse events in women and children who have received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis treatment: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
204 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
Adverse events in women and children who have received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis treatment: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1432-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Farah Seedat, Chris Stinton, Jacoby Patterson, Julia Geppert, Bee Tan, Esther R. Robinson, Noel Denis McCarthy, Olalekan A. Uthman, Karoline Freeman, Samantha Ann Johnson, Hannah Fraser, Colin Stewart Brown, Aileen Clarke, Sian Taylor-Phillips

Abstract

Adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) are poorly documented yet essential to inform clinical practice for neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention. In this systematic review, we appraised and synthesised the evidence on the adverse events of IAP in the mother and/or her child. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Science Citation Index from date of inception until October 16th 2016. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched. We included primary studies in English that reported any adverse events from intrapartum antibiotics for any prophylactic purpose compared to controls. The search was not restricted to prophylaxis for GBS but excluded women with symptoms of infection or undergoing caesarean section. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. Results were synthesised narratively and displayed in text and tables. From 2364 unique records, 30 studies were included. Despite a wide range of adverse events reported in 17 observational studies and 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence was inconsistent and at high risk of bias. Only one RCT investigated the long-term effects of IAP reporting potentially serious outcomes such as cerebral palsy; however, it had limited applicability and unclear biological plausibility. Seven observational studies showed that IAP for maternal GBS colonisation alters the infant microbiome. However, study populations were not followed through to clinical outcomes, therefore clinical significance is unknown. There was also observational evidence for increased antimicrobial resistance, however studies were at high or unclear risk of bias. The evidence base to determine the frequency of adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for neonatal GBS disease prevention is limited. As RCTs may not be possible, large, better quality, and longitudinal observational studies across countries with widespread IAP could fill this gap. CRD42016037195 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Researcher 17 8%
Other 12 6%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 63 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 79 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,216,812
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#891
of 4,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,154
of 317,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#24
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 317,087 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.