ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Validation and clinical implementation of cerebrospinal fluid C-reactive protein for the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- C-Reactive Protein and Neurological Autoimmune Diseases: Bridging the Diagnostic and Pathogenic Gap.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Cerebrospinal fluid C-reactive protein to diagnose healthcare-associated meningitis after neurosurgical procedures: An exploratory retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Construction and evaluation of a diagnostic prediction model for bacterial meningitis based on clinical and laboratory data.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was previously shown to be predictive for bacterial meningitis in patients with a suspected central nervous system (CNS) infection in an experimental study. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CRP in CSF in a validation and clinical implementation study. Methods: We validated CRP measurements in CSF for the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis in a Danish cohort of patients with acute CNS infections, and a Dutch cohort of pediatric patients suspected of a CNS infection. Subsequently, we evaluated the implementation of CRP measurements in CSF in clinical practice. Findings: CRP in CSF was measured in 103 adult patients from Denmark, which included 34 (33%) bacterial meningitis patients. The AUC was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99), and with a predefined cut-off of 0.3 mg/L, sensitivity was 85% (95% CI: 69-95) with a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 88-99). In 77 Dutch children, including 17 (22%) patients with bacterial meningitis, the AUC was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87-1.00) and sensitivity and specificity were 94% (95% CI: 71-100) and 98% (95% CI: 91-100), respectively. From June 2024 to November 2024, we included 80 patients in our clinical implementation cohort, of which 15 (19%) were diagnosed with bacterial meningitis. The AUC for CRP in CSF was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), and sensitivity was 100% (95% CI: 78-100) with a specificity of 94% (95% CI: 85-99). Across all cohorts, the combination of CSF leukocytes and CSF CRP improved diagnostic accuracy compared to CSF leukocytes alone (p ≤ 0.001 in all cohorts). Interpretation: CRP in CSF is a highly reliable predictor for bacterial meningitis, offering incremental value in addition to CSF leukocytes. Clinical implementation is straightforward and can be achieved at low costs in laboratories where CRP in blood is already routinely measured. Funding: Supported by the European Research Council (ERC Consolidator grant 101001237 to MB) and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; NWO-Vidi Grant [917.17.308] to MCB; NWO-Vici-Grant Grant [918.19.627] to DvdB).
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.