Post spinal meningitis and asepsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post spinal meningitis (PSM) is a complication still currently being reported. After two PSM cases in our hospital an epidemiological study was initiated, which included a survey of techniques for asepsis that are applied in our department. METHODS: Cases defined as PSM comprised meningitis within a week after spinal anesthesia. Anesthesia records, anesthesia complication files and the records of the Hospital Commission for Infection Control from 1997 to 2000 were reviewed. Asepsis techniques applied were surveyed by a questionnaire answered by all our department's anesthesiologists. The equipment and procedures for spinal anesthesia were listed. Current anesthesia textbooks were reviewed for recommendations regarding asepsis techniques in conjunction with spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: Three cases of PSM were identified following 38,128 spinal anesthesias whereas none was observed in 12,822 patients subjected to other types of regional or general anesthesia (P>0.05). Culture of cerebrospinal fluid yielded Streptococcus in two patients and was negative in the other patient. The asepsis technique applied by the anesthesiologists varied considerably. The literature review showed that aspects on asepsis for spinal anesthesia are poorly covered. CONCLUSION: The incidence of meningitis was similar in patients subjected to spinal anesthesia and in those subjected to other anesthetic techniques. Asepsis techniques were found to differ considerably among our staff members, reflecting the lack of well-defined published standards for this procedure. We recommend that asepsis for spinal anesthesia should not be less rigorous than for surgical asepsis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".