MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W182717293 · doi:10.1093/pch/10.2.107

Corticosteroids for suspected bacterial meningitis in children – Status in 2005

2005· article· en· W182717293 sur OpenAlexaff
James D. Kellner

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Établissements canadiensAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBacterial meningitisMeningitisPediatrics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Just after grand rounds, one of the senior residents comes up to you and asks, “I heard that there is some new evidence that steroids should be used in the therapy of suspected meningitis – is this true?” How do you respond? Whether recently published data support the use of corticosteroids in suspected bacterial meningitis in children illustrates a good example of the adage that, ‘children are not little adults’. Until the early 1990s, empirical corticosteroids were frequently used for cases of suspected bacterial meningitis in Canadian children (1). A meta-analysis of clinical trials concluded that corticosteroids were beneficial in preventing severe hearing loss in children with Haemophilus influenzae type b or Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis if they are given before or with the first dose of antibiotics (2). However, when one study from Egypt (3) was excluded from the meta-analysis, no benefit was found for corticosteroids in S pneumoniae meningitis. The Egyptian study was very different from the other studies because hearing loss was not evaluated in children younger than five years of age, and the mortality was much higher than that of other studies (19% versus 1% in studies from developed countries) (3). By the end of the 1990s, with the near disappearance of H influenzae type b meningitis and inconclusive evidence for any benefit of corticosteroids in S pneumoniae meningitis (now the most common cause of bacterial meningitis), empiric corticosteroids were used in only 5% of cases (1). For S pneumoniae meningitis, the most recent Canadian Paediatric Society position statement (2001) (4) states that there is only fair to moderate evidence for the use of corticosteroids in suspected cases, and the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2003 Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (5) states that, “data are not sufficient to demonstrate a clear benefit in children” of corticosteroids. What, then, is new on this subject? In 2002, a multicentre randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial (6) was published that compared dexamethasone with placebo given before or with the first dose of antibiotics in European adults with suspected bacterial meningitis. Their main finding was that, in adults with S pneumoniae meningitis, dexamethasone reduced mortality from 34% to 14% (P=0.02). However, mortality was not prevented in cases caused by Neisseria meningitidis or other pathogens, and neither hearing loss nor focal neurological sequelae were prevented in any cases. Is this dramatic effect to prevent mortality in S pneumoniae meningitis applicable to children? Likely it is not. The 34% baseline mortality in adults with S pneumoniae is far higher than the 5% mortality in Canadian children (1). A major factor in this difference is more frequent severe systemic disease in adults than in children. For example, in the European adult study (6), 20% in the placebo group had cardiorespiratory failure. Very recently, a secondary analysis of the European adult study was published that examined the particular issue of what kind of mortality was prevented by corticosteroids in S pneumoniae meningitis (7). By far, corticosteroids were most effective in preventing deaths in those with severe systemic disease (septic shock, multiorgan failure, respiratory failure or cardiac ischemia). The proportion of patients with deaths due to systemic disease was 16% in the placebo group compared with 2% in the corticosteroid group (P=0.04) (7). In contrast, deaths due to neurological causes did not differ between the groups (10% in the placebo group versus 7% in the corticosteroid group, P=0.56). The mechanism of action of the steroid benefit in adults is not known but is likely primarily related to the prevention of septic shock and respiratory failure (7). The results of the European meningitis study (6) brings new attention to another unresolved issue – the variable findings of studies of the impact of corticosteroids on sepsis in adults (7). For now however, for children with suspected bacterial meningitis, there is no new evidence to support the use of empirical corticosteroids. What is the bottom line on propofol and children? Should we be using steroids in children with meningitis? These and other questions from the front lines of child care are the subjects of a new feature in Paediatrics & Child Health, “Therapeutic Dilemmas”. The question should be a one or two line question on a therapeutic issue regarding child health. This question will then be addressed by experts in the field. Their response will undergo peer review and revision by the editors. How does this new feature fit with our Evidence for Clinicians articles? Regrettably, the majority of therapies in children have not had the benefit of evidence-based evaluation. This new feature will complement the outstanding work of Dr Klassen and others in establishing evidence-based practice by giving clinicians guidance on best current practice in areas of therapeutic uncertainty. You can submit questions to the Co-Editor-in-Chief (Dr Ford-Jones) or directly to Dr Rieder at mrieder@uwo.ca. The Editorial Board hopes that this provides an opportunity for residents, paediatricians and other child care workers on the front line to share their therapeutic questions with the readers of Paediatrics & Child Health.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetBacterial Infections and VaccinesTravaux en français237 207