Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 17865

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2010 | Month : December | Volume : 4 | Issue : 6 | Page : 3327 - 3330

The Bacterial Profile Of Neonatal Septicaemia In A Rural Hospital In South India


*MD, DCH, DNB, Professor; MBBS, Intern, Department of Pediatrics, KVG Medical College

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Edwin Dias
Professor and HOD
Department of Paediatrics
K.V.G Medical College
Kurunji Baug. Sullia


Introduction: Neonatal sepsis is the most common cause for neonatal deaths in the NICU. Newborn blood culture and sensitivity testing are important tools in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and in the institution of early antibiotic treatment. Material and Methods: This study was conducted by analyzing the blood cultures and the sensitivity reports of 100 newborns who were admitted to the NICU over a period preceding one year. Results: Of the 100 newborns, 32 (32%) showed positive blood culture reports. Out of the 32 positive blood cultures, 19 (59.4%) showed positivity for Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, 7 (21.9%) showed positivity for Staphylococcus aureus, 3 (9.4%) showed positivity for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 1 (3.1%) showed positivity for Enterococci, 1 (3.1%) showed positivity for Micrococci and 1 (3.1%) showed positivity for Flavobacteria. Overall, most of the neonatal sepsis was caused by Coagulase negative staphylococcus. The sensitivity pattern of the first line of antibiotics was as follows; out of the 19 Coagulase negative staphylococcus strains, 13 (68.42%) showed sensitivity to amikacin and ciprofloxacin, 15 (78.95%) to sparfloxacin, 9 (47.37%) to erythromycin, 10 (52.63%) to azithromycin, 12 (63.16%) to gentamicin and cephalexin and 5 (26.32%) to penicillin. Out of the 7 Staphylococcus aureus strains, 6 (85.71%) showed sensitivity to amikacin, 5 (71.43%) to erythromycin, 4 (57.14%) to sparfloxacin and ciprofloxacin, 3 (42.86%) to azithromycin and cephalexin and 1(14.29%) to penicillin and gentamicin. Out of the 3 Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains, 2 (66.7%) were sensitive to ciprofloxacin and amikacin and 1 (33.3%) was sensitive to to sparfloxacin, azithromycin and gentamicin. Enterococci showed sensitivity to sparfloxacin, cephalexin, and ciprofloxacin. Flavobacteria showed sensitivity to gentamicin, erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, sparfloxacin and amikacin. Their resistance patterns were also studied. Conclusion: Coagulase negative staphylococcus is the most common cause for neonatal sepsis in the NICU. Most of the organisms were sensitive to Amikacin.


Neonatal septicaemia, Blood culture, Antibiotic sensitivity.

Neonatal sepsis is the most common cause for neonatal deaths in the NICU (1). Neonatal septicaemia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality among neonates in India, with an estimated incidence of approximately 4% in intramural live births (2).
Neonatal septicaemia is defined as a disease of infants who are younger than 1 month of age, who are clinically ill, and who have positive blood cultures (3). Identification of aetiology is important, since it can induce a change in the management policy (4) For the effective management of neonatal septicaemia with appropriate antibiotics that would minimise the risk of severe morbidity and mortality, besides reducing the emergence of multidrug resistant organisms by rational antibiotic use, the study of the bacteriological profile and the antibiotic sensitivity pattern play a significant role (5),(6). Thus, newborn blood cultures and sensitivity testing are important tools in the diagnosis of neonatal sepsis and in the institution of early antibiotic treatment. The institution of prompt treatment is essential for ensuring optimum outcome in neonates with sepsis, who often reach the health care facilities late and in a critical condition, in order to prevent mortality and morbidity.
This study was carried out to determine the bacteriological profile and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of neonatal sepsis in our NICU, so that the antibiotics which were used in empirical treatment could be tailored to tackle the organisms in our NICU.

Material and Methods

This study was conducted by analysing the blood cultures and the sensitivity reports which were obtained during January 2008 to January 2009 from 100 newborns who were admitted to the NICU, Medical College and Hospital, Sullia, a rural teaching hospital in South Karnataka.
A total of 100 blood samples were collected from the clinically suspected cases of neonatal septicaemia, on the basis of antenatal risk factors, signs and symptoms of sepsis and elevated C- reactive protein levels from a peripheral vein, with proper antiseptic precautions before starting any antibiotic therapy. A second sample was collected on the same day to rule out contamination with the skin flora. Approximately 2cc of blood was drawn and inoculated into Brain Heart Infusion broth and it was incubated at 370C for 24 hrs. Subcultures were made on both blood agar and MacConkey’s agar after 24 hrs and 48 hrs. Negative cultures were followed up by examining the broth daily for 10 days. Growth, if any, was identified by standard bacteriological techniques (7) including gram staining, colony characteristics and biochemical reactions. Antibiotic sensitivity was performed by the Kirby Bauer’s disc diffusion method. Antibiotic sensitivity was tested for the following antibiotics: Gentamicin, Amikacin, Ciprofloxacin, Penicillin, Sparfloxacin, Erythromycin and Cephalexin.


Of the 100 newborns, 32 (32%) showed positive blood culture reports. Out of the 32 positive blood cultures, 28(87.5%) were gram positive bacterial isolates and only 4(12.5%) were gram negative bacteria. The commonest isolate was Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, followed by Staphylococcus aureus (Table/Fig 1).

(Table/Fig 1): Organisms found in our NICU

The results of the antibiotic sensitivity testing (Table/Fig 2) revealed that most of the isolates were sensitive to Amikacin.
(Table/Fig 2): Antibiotic sensitivity and resistance pattern of organisms found in our NICU


This study was conducted to determine the most predominant bacteria which caused neonatal septicaemia and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern in our NICU. A majority of our study population was poor and did not have proper antenatal checkups.
In most of the studies, gram negative bacteria were the principle pathogens which caused septicaemia (8),(9). In the present study, gram positive bacteria were the predominant isolates, among which Coagulase negative Staphylococcus (CONS) [19 (59.4%)] was the commonest cause of neonatal sepsis. Similar findings were noticed by others (10), (11), (12), (13), and (14). CONS septicaemia was noticed in babies who are hospitalised for 10 days or more. Our findings correlated with the study conducted by Anand et al (15). Previous studies have shown that the colonisation of babies by CONS occurs by the 3rd day of life (16). CONS is usually isolated from intravascular catheters, cerebrospinal fluid shunts and prosthetic valves, and is normally dismissed as a contaminant when isolated from blood. Though CONS is usually considered as a skin contaminant, the presence of this bacterium in blood in critically ill babies, especially in the 2nd week of life, should be considered as significant and should be treated, especially when it is isolated repeatedly. In our study, we noticed that early onset septicaemias were predominantly caused by gram negative bacteria and Staphylococcus aureus.
5(5%) of the neonates died due to sepsis. The neonates with CONS recovered after intensive treatment. The antibiotics which were used were based on the standard protocol of the hospital and the department policies, which are changed regularly pending the blood culture reports and infectious committee recommendations. The other causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus- 7 (21.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa -3 (9.4%), Enterococci -1 (3.1%), Micrococci- 1 (3.1%) and Flavobacteria - 1 (3.1%). The antibiotic sensitivity pattern differs in different studies as well, at different times in the same hospital (8). This is because of the emergence of resistant strains as a result of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics. This can be avoided by using drugs to which most organisms are susceptible. From this study, it was suggested that the appropriate empirical regimen should consist of Amikacin until the culture results arrived, as most of the organisms found in our NICU were highly sensitive to Amikacin.


Coagulase negative staphylococcus was the most common cause for late onset neonatal sepsis in our NICU. Most of the organisms in our NICU have shown sensitivity to Amikacin, as found in other studies (17).
The microbial aetiology of neonatal septicaemia is diverse. Thus, every NICU should emphasize the importance of a periodic study of the microbial bacterial spectrum and the resistance pattern of the microorganisms which are responsible for neonatal infections, in order to design a specific empirical antibiotic regimen for the NICU.
• To distinguish between the hospital and community acquired infections of newborns
• The correlation of neonatal morbidity and mortality with simultaneous blood cultures and sensitivity profiles
• The correlation of gestation age and birth weight with blood cultures and sensitivity results


National Neonatal – Perinatal Database: Report for the year 2000. National Neonatology Forum, India, Nov 2001: 42.
Neonatal morbidity and mortality: report of the National Neonatal – Perinatal Database. Indian Pediatr 1997; 34: 1039 – 42.
Freij BJ, Mc Cracken HO. Acute infections. In: Neonatology: Pathophysiology and Management of the newborn, 4th edn. Eds. Avery GB, Fletcher MA, Mac Donald MG. Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott company, 1994: p 1088.
Desinor OY, Silva JL, Menos MJ. Neonatal sepsis and meningitis in Haiti. J Trop Peditr. 2004; 50(1): 48-50.
Edwards MS. Postnatal infections. In: Neonatal – Perinatal Medicine. Edited by Fanaroff, Martins, 8th ed. Philadelphia, Mosby Elsevier 2006; Pp: 791 – 804.
Chacko B, Sohi I. Early onset neonatal sepsis. Indian J Pediatr. 2005: 72: 23 – 6.
Collee JG, Hayward NJ, Marr W. Blood culture. In: Cruickshank K, Duguid JP, Marmion BP, Swain RHA, editors. Medical microbiology, Vol.2. 12th ed. Edinburgh: Livingstone, 1975: 162 – 4.
Mathur M, Shah H, Khambadkone S et al. Bacteriological profile of neonatal septicaemia cases (for the year 1990 – 91). J Postgrad Med. 1994; 40: 18 – 20.
Kuruvilla KA, Pillai S, Jesudason M, Jana AK. Bacterial profile of sepsis in a neonatal unit in South India. Indian Pediatric 1998; 35:851-8.
Hufnagel M, Burger A, Bartelt S et al. Secular trends in pediatric bloodstream infections over a 20 year period at a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Eur J Pediatr. 2008.
Ghadamli P. Neonatal sepsis in Shaheed Beheshti teaching hospital (Persian). J Qazvin Uni Med Sci. 1998; 7: 53 – 7.
Amid MH. Cases of neonatal sepsis / meningitis in Mofid Children Hospital (Persian). J Shaheed Beheshti Uni Med Sci. 2002; 26(1):57-63.
Mozaffari. NA, Asghari. F, Hoseini. SZ. Bacterial etiology and antibiotic resistance of neonatal sepsis (Persian). Med J Tabriz Uni Med Sci. 2005:27; 07 – 110.
Agrawal M, Chaturvedi P, Dey SK, Narang P.Coagulase negative Staphylococal septicaemia in newborns. Indian pediatr 1990:27:163-9.
Anand NK, Gupta AK, ManMohan, Lamba IMS, Gupta R, Srivastava L. Coagulase negative staphylococcal septicaemia. Indian Pediatr .1991;28:1241-48.
Goldmann DA, Leclair J, Macone A. Bacterial colonisation of neonates admitted to an intensive care environment. Indian Pediatr 1978;93:288-93.
Kaushik SL, Parmar VR, Grover N, Grover PS, Kaushik R .Neonatal sepsis in hospital born babies. J Commun Dis. 1998 ;30:147-52

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)