Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35831140›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Clinical management of community-acquired meningitis in adults in the UK and Ireland in 2017: a retrospective cohort study on behalf of the National Infection Trainees Collaborative for Audit and Research (NITCAR).

Jayne Ellis, David Harvey, Sylviane Defres, Arjun Chandna, Eloisa MacLachlan, Tom Solomon, Robert S Heyderman, Fiona McGill, National Audit of Meningitis Management (NAMM) group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The management of acute meningitis: an update.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jayne EllisResearch Department of Infection, Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK.
David HarveyMicrobiology, Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Wirral, UK.
Sylviane DefresInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Arjun ChandnaClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Eloisa MacLachlanUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Tom SolomonInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Robert S HeydermanResearch Department of Infection, Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4573-449X
Fiona McGillInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK f.mcgill@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-0903-9046
National Audit of Meningitis Management (NAMM) group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess practice in the care of adults with suspected community-acquired bacterial meningitis in the UK and Ireland.

designRetrospective cohort study.

setting64 UK and Irish hospitals.

participants1471 adults with community-acquired meningitis of any aetiology in 2017.

resultsNone of the audit standards, from the 2016 UK Joint Specialists Societies guideline on diagnosis and management of meningitis, were met in all cases. With respect to 20 of 30 assessed standards, clinical management provided for patients was in line with recommendations in less than 50% of cases. 45% of patients had blood cultures taken within an hour of admission, 0.5% had a lumbar puncture within 1 hour, 26% within 8 hours. 28% had bacterial molecular diagnostic tests on cerebrospinal fluid. Median time to first dose of antibiotics was 3.2 hours (IQR 1.3-9.2). 80% received empirical parenteral cephalosporins. 55% ≥60 years and 31% of immunocompromised patients received anti-

conclusionThis study demonstrates that clinical care for patients with meningitis in the UK is not in line with current evidence-based national guidelines. Diagnostics and therapeutics should be targeted for quality improvement strategies. Work should be done to improve the impact of guidelines, understand why they are not followed and, once published, ensure they translate into changed practice.

Indexed as

Meningitis, BacterialAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansIrelandRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsBACTERIOLOGYDiagnostic microbiologyInfectious disease/HIVINTERNAL MEDICINEMolecular diagnosticsProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID35831140
PMCPMC9315913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.