Nosocomial meningitis diagnostic test characteristics: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence of nosocomial meningitis, and utility of lumbar puncture, is unclear in hospitalized patients without preceding neurosurgery or head trauma. Aim: We planned for a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate accuracy of clinical features and diagnostic utility of lumbar puncture in nosocomial meningitis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science from inception until June 5, 2024. We included studies evaluating utility of clinical features, or lumbar puncture, to rule out nosocomial meningitis in patients without preceding neurosurgery or head trauma. We excluded studies examining community acquired meningitis, outbreaks, HIV positive individuals, and case reports. Outcomes included incidence, risk factors and diagnostic accuracy of clinical features for nosocomial meningitis, and lumbar puncture complications. Given few included studies and heterogeneity, we could only summarize incidence of nosocomial meningitis. Findings: Of 13,302 citations, we reviewed 197 manuscripts and included 6. There were 23 of 333 (6.9%, very low certainty) positive lumbar punctures among individuals who underwent lumbar puncture to rule out nosocomial meningitis. Conclusions: There were insufficient data to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar puncture in nosocomial meningitis in patients without preceding neurosurgery or head trauma. Very low certainty evidence indicates the incidence of nosocomial meningitis is low in this population. Given complications and costs associated with lumbar puncture, future studies should evaluate its utility in nosocomial meningitis. In the meantime, it may be reasonable to reserve lumbar puncture to instances of high suspicion.
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 | 0.022 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".