ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)
Comparison of enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid with Bacterial Meningitis Score in children.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the etiologic agents of aseptic meningitis outbreak in Iranian children.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Differential Diagnosis and Hospital Emergency Management for Fastlane Treatment of Central Nervous System Infection Under the COVID-19 Epidemic in Changsha, China.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the role of enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid compared with the Bacterial Meningitis Score in children with meningitis.
methodsA retrospective cohort based on analysis of medical records of pediatric patients diagnosed as meningitis, seen at a private and tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, between 2011 and 2014. Excluded were patients with critical illness, purpura, ventricular shunt or recent neurosurgery, immunosuppression, concomitant bacterial infection requiring parenteral antibiotic therapy, and those who received antibiotics 72 hours before lumbar puncture.
resultsThe study included 503 patients. Sixty-four patients were excluded and 94 were not submitted to all tests for analysis. Of the remaining 345 patients, 7 were in the Bacterial Meningitis Group and 338 in the Aseptic Meningitis Group. There was no statistical difference between the groups. In the Bacterial Meningitis Score analysis, of the 338 patients with possible aseptic meningitis (negative cultures), 121 of them had one or more points in the Bacterial Meningitis Score, with sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 64.2%, and negative predictive value of 100%. Of the 121 patients with positive Bacterial Meningitis Score, 71% (86 patients) had a positive enterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid.
conclusionEnterovirus detection in cerebrospinal fluid was effective to differentiate bacterial from viral meningitis. When the test was analyzed together with the Bacterial Meningitis Score, specificity was higher when compared to Bacterial Meningitis Score alone. OBJETIVO: Avaliar o papel da pesquisa de enterovírus no líquido cefalorraquidiano em comparação com o Escore de Meningite Bacteriana em crianças com meningite. MÉTODOS: Coorte retrospectiva, realizada pela análise de prontuários, incluindo pacientes pediátricos, com diagnóstico de meningite e atendidos em um hospital privado e terciário, localizado em São Paulo, entre 2011 e 2014. Foram excluídos os pacientes com doença crítica, púrpura, derivação ventricular ou neurocirurgia recente, imunossupressão, outra infecção bacteriana concomitante que necessitasse de antibioticoterapia parenteral e aqueles que receberam antibiótico 72 horas antes da punção lombar. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos no estudo 503 pacientes. Destes, 64 foram excluídos e 94 não realizaram todos os exames para análise. Dos 345 pacientes restantes, 7 ficaram no Grupo de Meningite Bacteriana e 338 no Grupo de Meningite Asséptica. Não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos. Na análise do Escore de Meningite Bacteriana, dos 338 pacientes com possível meningite asséptica (culturas negativas), 121 deles tiveram um ou mais pontos para o Escore de Meningite Bacteriana, com valor de sensibilidade de 100%, especificidade de 64,2% e valor preditivo negativo de 100%. Dos 121 pacientes com Escore de Meningite Bacteriana positivo, 71% (86 pacientes) tiveram a pesquisa de enterovírus positiva no líquido cefalorraquidiano. CONCLUSÃO: A pesquisa de enterovírus no líquido cefalorraquidiano mostrou-se eficaz em diferenciar a meningite bacteriana da viral. Analisada junto com o Escore de Meningite Bacteriana, a especificidade foi maior em comparação ao Escore de Meningite Bacteriana isolado.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.