Diagnostic performance of the bacterial meningitis score in the emergency department patients: a multicenter retrospective study.

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE European Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-09 DOI:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001300
Thomas Volpe, Sacha Seksik, Judith Leblanc, Elisa Cherpin, Xavier Eyer, Ainhoa Aparicio Montforte, Quentin Delannoy, Anthony Chauvin
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of the bacterial meningitis score in the emergency department patients: a multicenter retrospective study.","authors":"Thomas Volpe, Sacha Seksik, Judith Leblanc, Elisa Cherpin, Xavier Eyer, Ainhoa Aparicio Montforte, Quentin Delannoy, Anthony Chauvin","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>The bacterial meningitis score (BMS) is a validated clinical prediction rule for identifying children at very low risk of bacterial meningitis based on five criteria. Whether BMS is safe to rule out bacterial meningitis in adults is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective was to evaluate the performance of the BMS to identify adults at low risk of bacterial meningitis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This 4-year-period multicentric retrospective diagnostic study was conducted in 15 adult emergency departments (EDs) in France. Immunocompetent patients with meningitis, defined as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pleocytosis (CSF white blood cells ≥ 5/µl), were included among patients with an ED report including a lumbar puncture code procedure or a diagnosis of meningitis according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10 th Revision classification. The reference standard for bacterial meningitis was a positive bacterial CSF culture.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and analysis: </strong>The main outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the BMS for the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis. The secondary outcome was the proportion of meningeal-dose antibiotic treatments that could have been avoided for patients with BMS = 0. The performances of the BMS when combined with intrathecal lactate, blood procalcitonin (PCT), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Among the 995 patients identified, 531 (13.3%) were eligible, and 456 patients (85.9%) with meningitis and a usable BMS were included. Seventy-three (16.0%) presented bacterial meningitis, with a majority of Streptococcus pneumoniae (n  = 35, 47.9%) and Neisseria meningitidis (n  = 10, 13.7%), and 383 (84.0%) had aseptic meningitis. There was one patient with bacterial meningitis and a BMS score of 0 [NPV: 99.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 97.4-100]. The proportion of avoidable antibiotics was 64.1% (95% CI: 57.3-70.3). The NPV was 100% (95% CI: 94.6-100), 97.9% (95% CI: 92.5-99.7), and 98.9% (95% CI: 96.1-99.9) for combined BMS with intrathecal lactate greater than or equal to 2 mmol/l, blood PCT greater than or equal to 0.29 µg/l, and blood CRP greater than or equal to 24 mg/l, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BMS score presents a very high NPV, with the potential of safely ruling out bacterial meningitis among ED patients with positive CSF results.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"118-126"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001300","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and importance: The bacterial meningitis score (BMS) is a validated clinical prediction rule for identifying children at very low risk of bacterial meningitis based on five criteria. Whether BMS is safe to rule out bacterial meningitis in adults is unknown.

Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the performance of the BMS to identify adults at low risk of bacterial meningitis.

Design: This 4-year-period multicentric retrospective diagnostic study was conducted in 15 adult emergency departments (EDs) in France. Immunocompetent patients with meningitis, defined as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pleocytosis (CSF white blood cells ≥ 5/µl), were included among patients with an ED report including a lumbar puncture code procedure or a diagnosis of meningitis according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10 th Revision classification. The reference standard for bacterial meningitis was a positive bacterial CSF culture.

Outcome measures and analysis: The main outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the BMS for the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis. The secondary outcome was the proportion of meningeal-dose antibiotic treatments that could have been avoided for patients with BMS = 0. The performances of the BMS when combined with intrathecal lactate, blood procalcitonin (PCT), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were also assessed.

Main results: Among the 995 patients identified, 531 (13.3%) were eligible, and 456 patients (85.9%) with meningitis and a usable BMS were included. Seventy-three (16.0%) presented bacterial meningitis, with a majority of Streptococcus pneumoniae (n  = 35, 47.9%) and Neisseria meningitidis (n  = 10, 13.7%), and 383 (84.0%) had aseptic meningitis. There was one patient with bacterial meningitis and a BMS score of 0 [NPV: 99.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 97.4-100]. The proportion of avoidable antibiotics was 64.1% (95% CI: 57.3-70.3). The NPV was 100% (95% CI: 94.6-100), 97.9% (95% CI: 92.5-99.7), and 98.9% (95% CI: 96.1-99.9) for combined BMS with intrathecal lactate greater than or equal to 2 mmol/l, blood PCT greater than or equal to 0.29 µg/l, and blood CRP greater than or equal to 24 mg/l, respectively.

Conclusion: The BMS score presents a very high NPV, with the potential of safely ruling out bacterial meningitis among ED patients with positive CSF results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急诊病人细菌性脑膜炎评分的诊断性能:一项多中心回顾性研究。
背景和重要性:细菌性脑膜炎评分(BMS)是一种经过验证的临床预测规则,用于根据五个标准识别极低细菌性脑膜炎风险的儿童。BMS是否能安全排除成人细菌性脑膜炎尚不清楚。目的:主要目的是评估BMS识别低风险成人细菌性脑膜炎的性能。设计:这项为期4年的多中心回顾性诊断研究在法国的15个成人急诊科(ed)进行。免疫功能正常的脑膜炎患者,定义为脑脊液(CSF)多胞症(CSF白细胞≥5/µl),纳入ED报告包括腰椎穿刺代码程序或根据国际疾病分类第10次修订分类诊断为脑膜炎的患者。细菌性脑膜炎的参考标准为细菌脑脊液培养阳性。结果测量和分析:主要结果为BMS对细菌性脑膜炎诊断的阴性预测值(NPV)。次要终点是BMS患者本可以避免的脑膜剂量抗生素治疗比例= 0。当BMS与鞘内乳酸、血降钙素原(PCT)和c反应蛋白(CRP)联合使用时,还评估了BMS的性能。主要结果:在确定的995例患者中,531例(13.3%)符合条件,其中456例(85.9%)合并脑膜炎和可用BMS。细菌性脑膜炎73例(16.0%),以肺炎链球菌(35例,47.9%)和脑膜炎奈瑟菌(10例,13.7%)居多,无菌性脑膜炎383例(84.0%)。细菌性脑膜炎1例,BMS评分为0 [NPV: 99.5%, 95%可信区间(CI): 97.4-100]。可避免的抗生素比例为64.1% (95% CI: 57.3 ~ 70.3)。BMS合并鞘内乳酸≥2 mmol/l、血PCT≥0.29 μ g/l、血CRP≥24 mg/l时,NPV分别为100% (95% CI: 94.6-100)、97.9% (95% CI: 92.5-99.7)和98.9% (95% CI: 96.1-99.9)。结论:BMS评分显示出非常高的NPV,有可能安全地排除脑脊液阳性ED患者的细菌性脑膜炎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
期刊最新文献
Promoting uniform data reporting in research on older individuals living with frailty in the emergency department: the Utstein approach. Effect of hypnotic communication on pain during arterial blood gas standardized procedures in the emergency department compared with traditional communication: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial (POPAIN study). Ten persistent misconceptions in sepsis and septic shock. Thermal comfort: the sixth vital sign? Defining the need for analgesia in the emergency department: an international consensus statement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1