ArticleInfection2026
Cerebrospinal fluid lipocalin-2 and bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein in acute bacterial versus viral meningitis: a prospective study.
Article in Infection, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDistinguishing acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) from acute viral meningitis (AVM) remains challenging in clinically ambiguous scenarios, particularly during early disease stages or following partial antibiotic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) lipocalin-2 (LCN-2) and Bactericidal/Permeability-Increasing Protein (BPI) for the rapid differentiation of ABM from AVM.
methodsIn this prospective study (November 2020-October 2021), 90 adult patients were categorized into ABM, AVM, and control groups based on clinical and laboratory definitions. CSF LCN-2 and BPI levels were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Group comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine sensitivity, specificity, and optimal cut-off values.
resultsAnalysis of a cohort of 90 patients revealed that CSF LCN-2 levels were significantly higher in the ABM group (median: 103.2 ng/mL) compared to the AVM group (median: 99.3 ng/mL; p = 0.003) and controls (p < 0.001). Applying a threshold of greater than 100.7 ng/mL, LCN-2 differentiated ABM from AVM with a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 60.0%. In contrast, CSF BPI levels did not demonstrate significant diagnostic value (p > 0.05).
conclusionCSF LCN-2 demonstrated high sensitivity as a biomarker for distinguishing ABM from AVM, indicating its potential as an adjunctive tool for early clinical decision-making. In contrast, BPI did not demonstrate adequate diagnostic utility in this cohort. Further multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the clinical applicability of LCN-2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42234339What 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.