| Title |
Clinical decision rules for acute bacterial meningitis: current insights
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oaem.s69975 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alain Viallon, Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers, Fabrice Zeni |
| Abstract |
Acute community-acquired bacterial meningitis (BM) requires rapid diagnosis so that suitable treatment can be instituted within 60 minutes of admitting the patient. The cornerstone of diagnostic examination is lumbar puncture, which enables microbiological analysis and determination of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytochemical characteristics. However, microbiological testing is not sufficiently sensitive to rule out this diagnosis. With regard to the analysis of standard CSF cytochemical characteristics (polymorphonuclear count, CSF glucose and protein concentration, and CSF:serum glucose), this is often misleading. Indeed, the relatively imprecise nature of the cutoff values for these BM diagnosis markers can make their interpretation difficult. However, there are two markers that appear to be more efficient than the standard ones: CSF lactate and serum procalcitonin levels. Scores and predictive models are also available; however, they only define a clinical probability, and in addition, their use calls for prior validation on the population in which they are used. In this article, we review current methods of BM diagnosis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 25% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 44% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#210
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,855
of 314,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.