Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38450214›Full record

ArticleNarra J2021

Accuracy of Meningitis Bacterial Score (MBS) as an indicator in establishing the diagnosis of acute bacterial meningitis in adults.

Imas R Palupi, Paulus Sugianto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Narra J, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Imas R PalupiDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.
Paulus SugiantoDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial meningitis persists as a worldwide threat contributing to high mortality and morbidity rate, where differentiating bacterial meningitis from aseptic meningitis is key for better management and outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to assess the Bacterial Meningeal Score (BMS) as a tool for early diagnosis of acute bacterial meningitis. This study employed a retrospective cross-sectional method using medical records of patients with meningitis and meningoencephalitis who were hospitalized at Dr. Soetomo Hospital, from January 2018 to September 2021. Data of demographics, clinical, laboratory and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) profile and culture were collected. The diagnostic performance of the BMS in diagnosing acute bacterial meningitis was evaluated by its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR +) and negative likelihood ratio (LR -). A total of 128 patients who had been diagnosed with meningitis and meningoencephalitis were included. Out of total patients, 53 samples were diagnosed with acute bacterial meningitis as confirmed by CSF culture. The sensitivity and specificity of BMS with cutoff >2.5 in diagnosing acute bacterial meningitis were 92.4% and 92.0%, respectively with PPV 89.1% and NPV 94.5%. The area under the curve (AUC) of BMS in diagnosing of acute bacterial meningitis was 95.6% (95%CI: 92.3%, 99%). A BMS score of greater than 2.5 indicates a high likelihood of acute bacterial meningitis, whereas a score less than 2.5 indicates a low likelihood.

Indexed as

Acute bacterial meningitisBacterial Meningeal Scorecerebrospinal fluiddiagnosticmeningoencephalitis

Identifiers

PMID38450214
PMCPMC10914030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.