Cited by 11Bacterial Infections and VaccinesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingAntibiotic Use and Resistance

Impact of round-the-clock CSF Gram stain on empirical therapy for suspected central nervous system infections

Tissot, F., Prod’hom, G., Manuel, O., Greub, G.·2015·European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases

Abstract

The impact of round-the-clock cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Gram stain on overnight empirical therapy for suspected central nervous system (CNS) infections was investigated. All consecutive overnight CSF Gram stains between 2006 and 2011 were included. The impact of a positive or a negative test on empirical therapy was evaluated and compared to other clinical and biological indications based on institutional guidelines. Bacterial CNS infection was documented in 51/241 suspected cases. Overnight CSF Gram stain was positive in 24/51. Upon validation, there were two false-positive and one false-negative results. The sensitivity and specificity were 41 and 99 %, respectively. All patients but one had other indications for empirical therapy than Gram stain alone. Upon obtaining the Gram result, empirical therapy was modified in 7/24, including the addition of an appropriate agent (1), addition of unnecessary agents (3) and simplification of unnecessary combination therapy (3/11). Among 74 cases with a negative CSF Gram stain and without formal indication for empirical therapy, antibiotics were withheld in only 29. Round-the-clock CSF Gram stain had a low impact on overnight empirical therapy for suspected CNS infections and was associated with several misinterpretation errors. Clinicians showed little confidence in CSF direct examination for simplifying or withholding therapy before definite microbiological results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10096-015-2423-9

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 11

Authors
Tissot, F., Prod’hom, G., Manuel, O., & Greub, G.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Tissot, F.
  • Greub, G.
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
Published
2015-07-04
Volume
34
Issue
9
Pages
1849-1857
ISSN
  • 0934-9723 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-4373
OpenAlex
W1935431111
Cited by
11
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RERO DOC (Universität Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Keywords
central nervous system infection, bacterial meningitis, empirical antibiotic therapy, sensitivity and specificity, false positives, unnecessary antibiotic use, combination antibiotic therapy, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cerebrospinal Fluid, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross Infection, Female, Gentian Violet, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Phenazines, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Staining and Labeling, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Meningitis, Bacterial, Community-Acquired Infections, Young Adult, Tertiary Care Centers

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