ArticleAnnals of medicine2022
Cerebrospinal fluid findings of infant tuberculous meningitis: a scoping review.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of the cerebrospinal fluid lipoarabinomannan assay for tuberculous meningitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Nanopore-targeted sequencing (NTS) for intracranial tuberculosis: a promising and reliable approach.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examinations play an important role in the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM). However, their yield in the diagnosis of infant TBM remains unclear. This scoping review aims to detail the role of CSF examination for the diagnosis of infant TBM.
methodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EBSCO, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify articles published prior to October 14th, 2021. Articles describing the results of CSF exanimations among infant TBM were eligible for inclusion. Data extracted from each study included age, sex, CSF microbiological evidence (such as AFB smear, TB PCR, and TB culture), and routine CSF examinations (such as appearance, red blood cell count, white blood cell count, protein, and glucose).
resultsA total of 98 cases were included in the final analysis. The yield of microbiological methods was listed as follows: CSF AFB smear, 20.5% (9/44); CSF TB culture 47.5% (29/61); CSF TB PCR, 65.0% (26/40); the combination of them, 57.3% (47/82). According to Marais criteria, the positivities of CSF examinations were calculated as follows: WBC count (ref, 50-500/μL), 65.5% (55/84); lymphocyte predominance (ref, >0.5), 75.4% (49/65); total protein (ref, >100 mg/dL), 67.8% (59/87); glucose (ref, <2.2 mmol/L, or CSF/serum ratio < 0.5), 68.2% (58/85).
conclusionsOur data demonstrated that routine microbiological tools for infant TBM diagnosis have a sensitivity ranging from 20.5% to 65.0%, and most CSF features are non-specific and insufficient to predict a diagnosis of infant TBM. Therefore, further effort is required to develop new tools for infant TBM diagnosis.Key messages: Routine microbiological tools (such as acid-fast bacilli smear, PCR, and culture) have an unsatisfactory sensitivity for infant TBM diagnosis, and most CSF features are non-specific and insufficient to predict a diagnosis of infant TBM. Therefore, further effort is required to develop new tools for infant TBM diagnosis.
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.