Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 294

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does This Adult Patient Have Acute Meningitis?

Attia, John·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Early clinical recognition of meningitis is imperative to allow clinicians to efficiently complete further tests and initiate appropriate therapy. OBJECTIVE: To review the accuracy and precision of the clinical examination in the diagnosis of adult meningitis. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive review of English- and French-language literature was conducted by searching MEDLINE for 1966 to July 1997, using a structured search strategy. Additional references were identified by reviewing reference lists of pertinent articles. STUDY SELECTION: The search yielded 139 potentially relevant studies, which were reviewed by the first author. Studies were included if they described the clinical examination in the diagnosis of objectively confirmed bacterial or viral meningitis. Studies were excluded if they enrolled predominantly children or immunocompromised adults or focused only on metastatic meningitis or meningitis of a single microbial origin. A total of 10 studies met the criteria and were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Validity of the studies was assessed by a critical appraisal of several components of the study design. These components included an assessment of the reference standard used to diagnose meningitis (lumbar puncture or autopsy), the completeness of patient ascertainment, and whether the clinical examination was described in sufficient detail to be reproducible. DATA SYNTHESIS: Individual items of the clinical history have low accuracy for the diagnosis of meningitis in adults (pooled sensitivity for headache, 50% [95% confidence interval [CI], 32%-68%]; for nausea/vomiting, 30% [95% CI, 22%-38%]). On physical examination, the absence of fever, neck stiffness, and altered mental status effectively eliminates meningitis (sensitivity, 99%-100% for the presence of 1 of these findings). Of the classic signs of meningeal irritation, only 1 study has assessed Kernig sign; no studies subsequent to the original report have evaluated Brudzinski sign. Among patients with fever and headache, jolt accentuation of headache is a useful adjunctive maneuver, with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 54%, positive likelihood ratio of 2.2, and negative likelihood ratio of 0 for the diagnosis of meningitis. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with a clinical presentation that is low risk for meningitis, the clinical examination aids in excluding the diagnosis. However, given the seriousness of this infection, clinicians frequently need to proceed directly to lumbar puncture in high-risk patients. Many of the signs and symptoms of meningitis have been inadequately studied, and further prospective research is needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.2.175

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 294

Metadata

Authors
Attia, J.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-07-14
Volume
282
Issue
2
Pages
175
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2121998559
Cited by
294
References
21
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does This Adult Patient Have Acute Meningitis? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.2.175
The paper
Attia, J. (1999). Does This Adult Patient Have Acute Meningitis? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.2.175

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.