Cited by 54Bacterial Infections and VaccinesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Prognostic Factors in Meningococcal Disease: Development of a Bedside Predictive Model and Scoring System

Barquet, Nicolau·1997·JAMA

Abstract

Context Meningococcal disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Development of a prognostic model based on clinical findings may be useful for identification and management of patients with meningococcal infection. Objectives To construct and validate a bedside model and scoring system for prognosis in meningococcal disease. Design Prospective, population-based study. Setting Twenty-four hospitals in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, Spain. Patients A total of 907 patients with microbiologically proven meningococcal disease. Patients diagnosed with meningococcal disease from 1987 through 1990 were used to develop the prognostic model, and those diagnosed in 1991 and 1992 were used to validate it. Outcome measures Clinical independent prognostic factors for mortality in meningococcal disease. The association between outcome and independent prognostic factors was determined by logistic regression analysis. A scoring system was constructed and tested using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results Among 624 patients in the derivation set, 287 (46%) were male, the mean age was 12.4 years, and 34 patients (5.4%) died. Among 283 patients in the validation set, 124 (43.8%) were male, the mean age was 12.7 years, and 17 patients (6.0%) died. In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of death were hemorrhagic diathesis (odds ratio [OR], 101; 95% confidence interval [CI], 30-333), focal neurologic signs (OR, 25; 95% CI, 7-83), and age 60 years or…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03550060067038

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barquet, N.
Affiliations
Institut Català de la Salut (ES)
Corresponding author
Barquet, Nicolau
Venue
JAMA
Published
1997-08-13
Volume
278
Issue
6
Pages
491
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2087872288
Cited by
54
References
2
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
meningococcal disease, meningococcal meningitis, prognostic factors, mortality prediction, clinical scoring systems, bleeding tendency, focal neurologic signs, age as risk factor, mortality risk stratification, meningococcal surveillance
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Central Nervous System Diseases, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Hemorrhagic Disorders, Hospitals, Urban, Humans, Infant, Male, Meningococcal Infections, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Spain, Models, Statistical, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Hospital Mortality, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review