Is a Lumbar Puncture Necessary When Evaluating Febrile Infants (30 to 90 Days of Age) With an Abnormal Urinalysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Guidelines for the management of febrile infants aged 30 to 90 days presenting to the emergency department (ED) suggest that a lumbar puncture (LP) should be performed routinely if a positive urinalysis is found during initial investigations. The aim of our study was to assess the necessity of routine LPs in infants aged 30 to 90 days presenting to the ED for a fever without source but are found to have a positive urine analysis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all infants aged 30 to 90 days, presenting to the Montreal Children's Hospital ED from October 2001 to August 2005 who underwent an LP for bacterial culture, in addition to urinalysis and blood and urine cultures. Descriptive statistics and their corresponding confidence intervals were used. RESULTS: Overall, 392 infants were identified using the microbiology laboratory database. Fifty-seven patients had an abnormal urinalysis. Of these, 1 infant (71 days old) had an Escherichia coli urinary tract infection, bacteremia, and meningitis. This patient, however, was not well on history, and the peripheral white blood cell count was low at 2.9 × 10⁹/L. Thus, the negative predictive value of an abnormal urinalysis for meningitis was 98.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Routine LPs are not required in infants (30-90 days) presenting to the ED with a fever and a positive urinalysis if they are considered at low risk for serious bacterial infection based on clinical and laboratory criteria. However, we recommend that judicious clinical judgment be used; in doubt, an LP should be performed before empiric antibiotic therapy is begun.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".