ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
A tale of missed opportunities- study on referred versus non-referred adult cases with acute and subacute central nervous system (CNS) infections at a tertiary centre from India.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute and subacute central nervous system (CNS) infections represent critical medical emergencies requiring prompt and accurate management. The practices in managing such cases at various primary or secondary health-care facilities, where patients usually have first contact and receive preliminary treatment, can have impact on diagnosis and outcomes. The present study aimed to investigate the differences in microbiological confirmation rates and outcomes between referred and non-referred cases of community-acquired CNS infections at a tertiary centre, while identifying gaps in the management practices at first-contact healthcare facilities.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jodhpur. All referred and non-referred cases with suspected CNS infections underwent microbiological evaluation and all efforts were made for etiological identification by utilising specimens from CNS- sites like cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and lesion biopsies or extra-CNS sites like blood cultures, serology, tissue biopsies and respiratory samples. The management practices at centres that referred the cases were also evaluated. The rate of microbiological confirmation and outcomes in terms of mortality and disability by using 30th day Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) and duration of hospital stay were determined and compared between referred and non-referred group.
resultsIn this study out 88 cases with acute or subacute CNS infections, 50 were referred, and 38 were non-referred who presented directly. Non-referred cases had better microbiological confirmations (92.1% vs. 28%, p < 0.0001) and outcomes (GOS 4 or 5, 71% vs. 48%, p = 0.031) as compared to referred cases. The length of stay was also less in non-referred cases by an average of 8 days.
conclusionEarlier suspicion, appropriate sample collection and processing and prompt treatment improves outcome in cases with acute/subacute CNS infections. Better infrastructures and training are warranted at preliminary levels of health care, which usually are the first contact centre for such infections.
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.