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.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in detecting category A biothreat agents: Toward symptom-driven sensing strategies.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026Review
- Rational corticosteroids administration and antibiotic treatment is key to managing cutaneous anthrax.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Central Nervous System Antimicrobial Exposure and Proposed Dosing for Anthrax Meningitis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Predicting the risk of primary Sjögren's syndrome with key N7-methylguanosine-related genes: A novel XGBoost model.Heliyon · 2024Article
- CDC Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Anthrax, 2023.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Risk Factors for Severe Cutaneous Anthrax in a Retrospective Case Series and Use of a Clinical Algorithm to Identify Likely Meningitis and Evaluate Treatment Outcomes, Kyrgyz Republic, 2005-2012.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.