ArticlePloS one2020
Predictive value of repeated cerebrospinal fluid parameters in the outcomes of bacterial meningitis in infants <90 days of age.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical predictors of poor outcome of bacterial meningitis in infants less than 90 days: a systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical and Laboratory Profiles, Time to Presentation, and Antibacterial Therapy in Children with Aseptic Meningitis: A Comparison of Confirmed Enteroviral and Unidentified-Etiology Cases.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical features, risk factors and outcomes of hydrocephalus in neonatal bacterial meningitis: a retrospective case-control study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The clinical condition rather than cerebrospinal fluid levels may guide the optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy among neonates with bacterial meningitis: A single-center retrospective study.Pediatric discovery · 2023Article
- Practice Summary of Antimicrobial Therapy for Commonly Encountered Conditions in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Canadian Perspective.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are variations in recommendations from different guidelines regarding the indications for repeat lumbar puncture (LP) in young infants with the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis.
objectiveTo evaluate the frequency of repeat LPs and the characteristics of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) parameters in repeated sampling and their predictive values for adverse outcomes in a national cohort.
methodsThis cohort study included infants born January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014, who had proven or suspected bacterial meningitis within the first 90 days of life at seven paediatric tertiary care hospitals across Canada, and who underwent a repeat LP at the discretion of the treating physicians.
resultsForty-nine of 111 infants (44%) underwent repeat LP at a median of 5 (IQR: 3, 13) days after the LP that led to the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis. Those who had meningitis caused by gram negative bacilli were more likely to have repeat LP than those with gram positive bacteria (77% versus 57%; p = 0.012). White blood cell (WBC) count on the second spinal tap yielded an area under the curve of 0.88 for predicting sequelae of meningitis at discharge from the hospital, with a cut-off value of 366 × 106/L, providing a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 88%.
conclusionIn this multi-centre retrospective cohort study, infants with gram negative meningitis were more likely to have repeated LP. A high WBC on the second CSF sample was predictive of adverse outcome at the time of discharge from the hospital.
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.