ArticleBMC pediatrics2023
Development a prediction model for identifying bacterial meningitis in young infants aged 29-90 days: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advancements in pediatric purulent meningitis: diagnosis and treatment.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- A Machine Learning Approach for Identifying People With Neuroinfectious Diseases in Electronic Health Records: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Construction and Validation of a Nomogram Model for Predicting the Risk of Neonatal Sepsis Complicated by Purulent Meningitis.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Validation of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Distinguishing Bacterial and Aseptic Meningitis in Pediatric Patients.Cureus · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe early diagnosis and treatment of bacterial meningitis (BM) in young infants was very critical. But, it was difficult to make a definite diagnosis in the early stage due to nonspecific clinical symptoms. Our objectives were to find the risk factors associated with BM and develop a prediction model of BM especially for young infants.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of young infants with meningitis between January 2011 and December 2020 in Children's Hospital of Soochow University. The independent risk factors of young infants with BM were screened using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The independent risk factors were used to construct a new scoring model and compared with Bacterial Meningitis Score (BMS) and Meningitis Score for Emergencies (MSE) models.
resultsAmong the 102 young infants included, there were 44 cases of BM and 58 of aseptic meningitis. Group B Streptococcus (22, 50.0%) and Escherichia coli (14, 31.8%) were the main pathogens of BM in the young infants. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified procalcitonin (PCT), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glucose, CSF protein as independent risk factors for young infants with BM. We assigned one point for CSF glucose ≤ 1.86 mmol/L, two points were assigned for PCT ≥ 3.80 ng/ml and CSF protein ≥ 1269 mg/L. Using the not low risk criterion (score ≥ 1) with our new prediction model, we identified the young infantile BM with 100% (95% CI 91.9%-100%) sensitivity and 60.3% (95% CI 46.4%-72.9%) specificity. Compared with BMS and MSE model, our prediction model had larger area under receiver operating characteristic curve and higher specificity, the differences were statistically significant.
conclusionOur new scoring model for young infants can facilitate early identification of BM and has a better performance than BMS and MSE models.
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.