Trial reportPloS one2018
A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a tailored intervention to improve the initial management of suspected encephalitis.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mass spectrometry-based proteomic techniques to identify cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for diagnosing suspected central nervous system infections. A systematic review.The Journal of infection · 2019Pooled it
- Jamestown Canyon Virus Disease: An Analytic Review of Human Cases Reported from 1982 Through 2022.Viruses · 2026Review
- Health economic impact of early versus delayed treatment of herpes simplex virus encephalitis in the UK.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- A multifaceted intervention to improve diagnosis and early management of hospitalised patients with suspected acute brain infections in Brazil, India, and Malawi: an international multicentre intervention study.Lancet (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Socioeconomic drivers of encephalitis burden in the post-COVID era: a 204-country analysis from global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Global Landscape of Encephalitis: Key Priorities to Reduce Future Disease Burden.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Review
- Clinical predictors of encephalitis in UK adults-A multi-centre prospective observational cohort study.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Coronavirus Infections in the Nervous System of Children: A Scoping Review Making the Case for Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Surveillance.Pediatric neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether a tailored multifaceted implementation strategy improves the initial management of patients with suspected encephalitis.
designPragmatic two arm cluster randomised controlled trial.
settingHospitals within the United Kingdom.
participantsTwenty-four hospitals nested within 12 postgraduate deaneries. Patients were identified retrospectively by searching discharge, microbiology, radiology and pharmacy records and included if they met clinical criteria or had a recorded suspicion of encephalitis.
interventionAn implementation strategy designed to overcome barriers to change, comprising local action planning, education and training, feedback on performance, a lumbar puncture pack and a range of optional components. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with suspected encephalitis undergoing diagnostic lumbar puncture within 12 hours of admission and starting aciclovir treatment within six hours. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of adults and children who had a lumbar puncture, who had appropriate cerebrospinal fluid investigations, and who had appropriate radiological imaging within 24 hours of admission. Data were collected from patient records for 12 months before and 12 months during the intervention period, and analysed blind to allocation.
results13 hospitals were randomised to intervention and 11 to control (no intervention), with 266 and 223 patients with suspected encephalitis identified respectively. There was no significant difference in primary outcome between intervention and control hospitals (13.5% and 14.8% respectively, p = 0.619; treatment effect -0.188, 95% confidence interval -0.927 to 0.552), but both had improved compared to pre-intervention (8.5%).
conclusionThe improvement in both intervention and control arms may reflect overall progress in management of encephalitis through wider awareness and education.
trial registrationControlled Trials: ISRCTN06886935.
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.