Cited by 3Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsPleural and Pulmonary Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Utility of CSF Correction Factors for Traumatic Lumbar Puncture in Adults

Open access
Zhou, Ryan W., Sangam, Kamala, Budhram, Adrian·2024·Neurology Clinical Practice

Abstract

Objectives: To identify indicators of false pleocytosis in adults with traumatic lumbar puncture (LP), and determine specificities and sensitivities of commonly used CSF correction factors. Methods: Adults who underwent 4-tube CSF collection were reviewed. Study inclusion required elevated tube 1 red blood cell (RBC) count, tube 1 pleocytosis, and normalized tube 4 RBC count. Tube 4 white blood cell (WBC) count served as the reference standard. Specificities and sensitivities of 3 correction factors (1 WBC:500 RBC, 1 WBC:1000 RBC, and 1 WBC:1500 RBC) were calculated. Results: One hundred ninety-five adults were included. Among them, 106 (54%) had false tube 1 pleocytosis; these patients had a significantly higher median CSF RBC count and lower median CSF WBC count than those with true tube 1 pleocytosis. Specificities and sensitivities of correction factors ranged from 71.7% to 29.2% and 84.3% to 97.8%, respectively; 1 WBC:500 RBC had highest specificity for pleocytosis, while 1 WBC:1500 RBC had highest sensitivity. Irrespective of correction factor used, false-positive and false-negative determinations of pleocytosis were usually mild (≤20 WBCs/μL). Discussion: Indicators of false pleocytosis in adults with traumatic LP include bloodier CSF and milder pleocytosis, suggesting that correction factors are most useful in such cases. Across correction factors, an expected specificity/sensitivity tradeoff is observed. Corrected CSF WBC counts suggesting only mild pleocytosis should be interpreted cautiously.

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 · 10.1212/cpj.0000000000200350

Cites

9 of 9 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, R. W., Sangam, K., & Budhram, A.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Budhram, Adrian
Venue
Neurology Clinical Practice
Published
2024-12
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
e200350-e200350
ISSN
  • 2163-0402 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-0933
OpenAlex
W4401633003
Cited by
3
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Neurology Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Neurosurgical Procedures and Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Pleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Keywords
traumatic lumbar puncture, CSF white blood cell count, sensitivity and specificity

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