4.2 Article

A Diagnostic Scoring System for Distinguishing between Tuberculous and Bacterial Meningitis Based on Clinical and Laboratory Findings

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2021, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2021/1220650

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to create a scoring system based on clinical and laboratory data to diagnose tuberculous meningitis in Chinese patients, achieving a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 94%. Five variables were found to be independently associated with tuberculous meningitis, providing a tool for doctors to differentiate it from bacterial meningitis.
It is very difficult to diagnose and distinguish tuberculous meningitis, and the current laboratory methods are unsubstantial in developing countries. The study is aimed at creating a scoring system on the basis of basic laboratory and clinical achievements that could be used as diagnostic aid for tuberculous meningitis for Chinese patients. A retrospective study of cases was conducted for comparison between clinical characteristics and laboratory features of 241 patients on admission who conformed to inclusion criteria of tuberculous meningitis (n=141) or bacterial meningitis (n=100). Logistic regression was employed to establish a diagnostic formula to distinguish between tuberculous meningitis and bacterial meningitis. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was applied to determine the best diagnostic critical point of the diagnostic formula. It was found that five variables (disease course, white blood cell count, serum sodium, total white cell count of cerebrospinal fluid, and neutrophil proportion in cerebrospinal fluid) were independently associated with tuberculous meningitis. The 87% sensitivity and 94% specificity were included in the diagnostic scoring system derived from these variables. Especially in the case of limited microbial resources, doctors can use this diagnostic scoring system to distinguish tuberculous meningitis from bacterial meningitis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据