Cited by 97Bacterial Infections and VaccinesInfectious Encephalopathies and EncephalitisBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Adults with suspected central nervous system infection: a prospective study of diagnostic accuracy

Open access
Khatib, Ula, van de Beek, Diederik, Lees, John A., Brouwer, Matthijs C.·2017·Journal of Infection

Abstract

Objectives To study the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and laboratory features in the diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) infection and bacterial meningitis.Methods We included consecutive adult episodes with suspected CNS infection who underwent cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination. The reference standard was the diagnosis classified into five categories: 1) CNS infection; 2) CNS inflammation without infection; 3) other neurological disorder; 4) non-neurological infection; and 5) other systemic disorder.Results Between 2012 and 2015, 363 episodes of suspected CNS infection were included. CSF examination showed leucocyte count >5/mm 3 in 47% of episodes. Overall, 89 of 363 episodes were categorized as CNS infection (25%; most commonly viral meningitis [7%], bacterial meningitis [7%], and viral encephalitis [4%]), 36 (10%) episodes as CNS inflammatory disorder, 111 (31%) as systemic infection, in 119 (33%) as other neurological disorder, and 8 (2%) as other systemic disorders. Diagnostic accuracy of individual clinical characteristics and blood tests for the diagnosis of CNS infection or bacterial meningitis was low. CSF leucocytosis differentiated best between bacterial meningitis and other diagnoses (area under the curve [AUC] 0.95) or any neurological infection versus other diagnoses (AUC 0.93).Conclusions Clinical characteristics fail to differentiate between neurological infections and other diagnoses, and CSF analysis is the main contributor to the final diagnosis.

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 · 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.09.007

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Presenting features of ABM in adults vary according to patient age and cannot reliably distinguish bacterial from viral meningitis or other differential diagnoses.

    “Presenting features of ABM in adults vary according to patient age 28 and cannot reliably distinguish bacterial from viral meningitis or other differential diagnoses.29”
  • Numerous adjunctive interventions have shown promise in tissue culture and animal models.

    “Numerous adjunctive interventions have shown promise in tissue culture and animal models.29”

    From Community-acquired acute bacterial meningitis in adults: a clinical update (2019) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Introduction describes a study of diagnostic accuracy in adults with suspected CNS infection, while the Results report clinical investigations and treatments. Searches for adjunctive interventions and for experimental animal or tissue-culture models found no passage addressing whether such interventions showed promise. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khatib, U., van de Beek, D., Lees, J. A., & Brouwer, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Brouwer, Matthijs C.
Venue
Journal of Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
0163-4453 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2530947288
Cited by
97
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8
FWCI
11.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (916.13.078, 016.116.358)
  • European Research Council (281156)
  • Medical Research council (1365620)
  • Wellcome Trust (098051)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infectious Encephalopathies and Encephalitis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
central nervous system infection, bacterial meningitis, diagnostic accuracy, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, viral meningitis, viral encephalitis, clinical features, adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Central Nervous System Infections, Encephalitis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Meningitis, Bacterial, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

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