Abstract
Objective: To attempt to validate a previously reported clinical prediction rule derived to assist in distinguishing between acute bacterial meningitis and acute viral meningitis.
Design: Retrospective chart review of patients treated at five hospitals between 1981 and 1990. The criterion standard for bacterial meningitis was a positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood culture or a positive test for bacterial antigen in the CSF. For viral meningitis, the criterion standard was a positive viral culture from CSF, stool, or blood or a discharge diagnosis of viral meningitis with no other etiology evident.
Setting: Two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, two county hospitals, and one private hospital, each affiliated with one of two medical schools.
Patients: All persons aged more than 17 years who were hospitalized over a ten-year period at one of five academically affiliated hospitals for the management of acute meningitis.
Measurements and main results: Sixty-two cases of bacterial meningitis and 98 cases of viral meningitis were confirmed. With all patients included, the discriminatory power of the model as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.977 (95% CI, 0.957–0.997), compared with the AUC of 0.97 in the derivation set of the original publication. The AUCs (95% CIs) for data subsets were: Dallas cases 0.994 (0.986–1.0), Milwaukee cases 0.912 (0.834–0.990); ages 18–39 years 0.952 (0.892–1.0), ages 40–59 years 0.99 (0.951–1.0), and age >60 years 0955 (0.898–1.0).
Conclusions. The authors conclude that the clinical prediction rule proved robust when applied to a geographically distinct population comprised exclusively of adults. There was sustained performance of the model when applied to cases from each city and from three age strata. Prospective validation of this prediction rule will be necessary to confirm its utility in clinical practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Geiseler PJ, Nelson KE, Levin S, Reddi KT, Moses VK. Community-acquired purulent meningitis: a review of 1,316 cases during the antibiotic era, 1954–1976. Rev Infect Dis. 1980;2:725–45.
McGee ZA, Kaiser AB. Acute meningitis. In: Mandell GL, Douglas RG, Bennett JE (eds). Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985;560–73.
Spanos A, Harrell FE Jr, Durack DT. Differential diagnosis of acute meningitis: an analysis of the predictive value of initial observations. JAMA. 1989;262:2700–7.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.
Wasson JH, Sox HC, Neff RK, Goldman L. Clinical prediction rules: applications and methodological standards. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:793–9.
Young MJ, McMahon LF Jr, Stross JK. Prediction rules for patients with suspected myocardial infarction: applying guidelines in community hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:1219–22.
Poses RM, Cebul RD, Collins M. The importance of disease prevalence in transporting clinical prediction rules: the case of streptococcal pharyngitis. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:586–91.
Genton B, Berger JP. Cerebrospinal fluid lactate in 78 cases of adult meningitis. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16:196–200.
Lindquist L, Linne T, Hansson LO, Kalin M, Axelsson G. Value of cerebrospinal fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of meningitis: a study in 710 patients with suspected central nervous system infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988;7:374–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by an Institutional Research Grant under the Regents Appropriations program at UT/Southwestern Medical School.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McKinney, W.P., Heudebert, G.R., Harper, S.A. et al. Validation of a clinical prediction rule for the differential diagnosis of acute meningitis. J Gen Intern Med 9, 8–12 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599135
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599135