ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Diagnostic performance of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 for bacterial meningitis: a meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of Secondary Bacterial Meningitis via Aromatic Metabolites and Biomarkers in Cerebrospinal Fluid.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- PCR-positive meningococcal CSF infection without pleocytosis but high IL-6 and IL-8.Infection · 2024Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of interleukin-6 in multiple diseases: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Heliyon · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to summarize the overall diagnostic performance of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 in cerebrospinal fluid for bacterial meningitis through meta-analysis due to inconclusive results reported. Literature search was performed in PubMed and Embase to identify eligible studies. Data were retrieved and sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio/negative likelihood ratio (PLR/NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate their overall test performances. Thirteen studies were included for present meta-analysis. The summary estimates for interleukin-6 in diagnosing bacterial meningitis were: sensitivity, 0.91 (95% CI 0.81-0.96); specificity, 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-0.97); PLR, 12.38 (95% CI 5.42-28.29); NLR, 0.10 (95% CI 0.04-0.21); DOR, 129.76 (95% CI 41.48-405.88); and AUC 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.98). The corresponding summary performance estimates for interleukin-8 were as follows: sensitivity, 0.95 (95% CI 0.71-0.99); specificity, 0.89 (95% CI 0.77-0.95); PLR, 8.50 (95% CI, 3.83-18.86); NLR, 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.40); DOR, 154.25 (95% CI 14.56-1634.33); and AUC 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97). Measurements of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 play a valuable role in diagnosing bacterial meningitis. Nevertheless, their results should be interpreted in parallel with the results of routine tests and clinical symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26221243PMC4509188What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.