SynthesisThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2024
Diagnostic Prediction Model for Tuberculous Meningitis: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
Abstract
No accurate and rapid diagnostic test exists for tuberculous meningitis (TBM), leading to delayed diagnosis. We leveraged data from multiple studies to improve the predictive performance of diagnostic models across different populations, settings, and subgroups to develop a new predictive tool for TBM diagnosis. We conducted a systematic review to analyze eligible datasets with individual-level participant data (IPD). We imputed missing data and explored three approaches: stepwise logistic regression, classification and regression tree (CART), and random forest regression. We evaluated performance using calibration plots and C-statistics via internal-external cross-validation. We included 3,761 individual participants from 14 studies and nine countries. A total of 1,240 (33%) participants had "definite" (30%) or "probable" (3%) TBM by case definition. Important predictive variables included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) glucose, blood glucose, CSF white cell count, CSF differential, cryptococcal antigen, HIV status, and fever presence. Internal validation showed that performance varied considerably between IPD datasets with C-statistic values between 0.60 and 0.89. In external validation, CART performed the worst (C = 0.82), and logistic regression and random forest had the same accuracy (C = 0.91). We developed a mobile app for TBM clinical prediction that accounted for heterogeneity and improved diagnostic performance (https://tbmcalc.github.io/tbmcalc). Further external validation is needed.
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.