| pubmed-article:11065044 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0334897 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0334898 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0579233 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0220908 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0004340 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0683292 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0175671 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:issue | 3 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2001-2-9 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:abstractText | Group B streptococcus (GBS) is the leading infectious cause of morbidity and mortality in Australian newborns. Although intrapartum chemoprophylaxis is recommended to reduce the risk of neonatal GBS transmission and disease, controversy exists as to the best method to select women 'at risk' for this treatment. Our study aimed to survey the opinions of obstetricians and neonatologists currently in practice in Australia on GBS screening and treatment. Of the 488 obstetricians and 68 neonatologists currently in practice who responded to the survey, 271 obstetricians (56%) and 40 neonatologists (61%) supported universal antenatal screening. Of those respondents who did not support a universal antenatal screening policy, 196 (93%) and 24 (92%) of the obstetricians and neonatologists respectively, supported antenatal screening based on risk factors. This diversity in practitioner opinion highlights the lack of certainty in the literature as to the best management strategy to prevent neonatal GBS sepsis. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:month | Aug | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:issn | 0004-8666 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:McLaughlinKK | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:CrowtherCC | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:volume | 40 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:pagination | 338-40 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2009-11-11 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:11065044... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:year | 2000 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:articleTitle | Universal antenatal group B streptococcus screening? The opinions of obstetricians and neonatologists within Australia. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Adelaide University, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:11065044 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
