You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Incidence of invasive CNS disease with Ureaplasma: where are we now?
  1. O O'Connor1,
  2. Hafis Ibrahim2,
  3. Timothy Neal3,
  4. Caroline E Corless3
  1. 1 Alder Hey Children's Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
  2. 2 Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
  3. 3 Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr O O'Connor, Alder Hey Children's Hospital NHS Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool L12 5AP, UK; olya.o'connor@nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-306136

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We were interested to read the review by Rose Marie Viscardi in a recent edition of the Fetal and Neonatal about the role of Ureaplasma species in neonatal morbidities and outcome.1

    The original study by the corresponding author and her colleagues performed at the University of Maryland Medical Center and Mercy Medical Center (Baltimore, USA) showed that invasive Ureaplasma species occurs commonly in very low birthweight infants and more prevalent than it was previously thought.2

    The study states that cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was obtained within 72 h of birth in 189 neonates (60% of cohort) and Ureaplsama species were detected in 36 neonates (19%).2 Of note, the population was 72% African–American, and preterm labour occurred in 91% of cases.

    We know that Ureaplasma species are the most common bacteria implicated in human urogenital infections, including complications of pregnancy …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors OO and HI prepared study protocol and consented patients for research. TN and CEC performed laboratory analysis. All authors have participated in interpretation of data, revising the manuscript critically and final approval of the version to be published.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.