Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36251554›Full record

SynthesisClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2022

Algorithms for the Identification of Anthrax Meningitis During a Mass Casualty Event Based on a Systematic Review of Systemic Anthrax From 1880 Through 2018.

Sophie Binney, Marissa K Person, Rita M Traxler, Rachel Cook, William A Bower, Katherine Hendricks

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Central Nervous System Antimicrobial Exposure and Proposed Dosing for Anthrax Meningitis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. CDC Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Anthrax, 2023.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2023
    Article
  6. Responding to the Threat Posed by Anthrax: Updated Evidence to Improve Preparedness.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie BinneySchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Marissa K PersonDivision of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Rita M TraxlerDivision of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Rachel CookOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, CDC Fellowship Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
William A BowerDivision of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6538-8665
Katherine HendricksDivision of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USGeorgia State University · US

Funding

CDC HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring an anthrax mass casualty event, prompt identification of patients with anthrax meningitis is important. Previous research has suggested use of a screening tool based on neurological symptoms and signs.

methodsUsing historical anthrax patient data from 1880 through 2018, we analyzed risk factors for meningitis. We developed lists of symptoms and signs (ie, algorithms) for predicting meningitis with high sensitivity and specificity. We evaluated both single and paired algorithms as screening tools.

resultsA single algorithm with 1 or more neurological symptoms or signs identifying patients with likely meningitis achieved high sensitivity (86%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-100%) and specificity (90%; 95% CI, 82%-98%). Pairing algorithms with the same symptoms and signs (severe headache, altered mental status, meningeal signs, and "other neurological deficits") improved specificity (99%; 95% CI, 97%-100%) but left 17.3% of patients in a middle "indeterminate" meningitis category and in need of additional diagnostic testing to determine likely meningitis status. Pairing algorithms with differing symptoms and signs also improved specificity over the single algorithm (92%; 95% CI, 85%-99%) but categorized just 2.5% of patients as indeterminate.

conclusionsOur study confirms prior research suggesting quick and reliable assessment of patients for anthrax meningitis is possible based on the presence or absence of certain symptoms and signs. A single algorithm was adequate; however, if we assumed low-resource diagnostic testing was feasible for some patients, pairing algorithms improved specificity. Pairing algorithms with differing symptoms and signs minimized the proportion of patients requiring additional diagnostics.

Indexed as

AnthraxMass Casualty IncidentsMeningitis, BacterialAlgorithmsHumansalgorithmanthraxmass casualtymeningitistriage

Identifiers

PMID36251554
PMCPMC9649431
OpenAlexW4306632835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.