ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2026
Clinical scoring systems for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of critical care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculous meningitis (TBM) is a severe extrapulmonary complication of tuberculosis. Early diagnosis is crucial in improving patient outcomes, albeit difficult given the non-specific clinical presentation of early stage TBM. Numerical diagnostic scoring systems may be useful diagnostic tools for clinicians, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
aimTo describe existing TBM diagnostic scores with the primary focus being on scores with external validation.
methodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to 21 March 2024. Cross-sectional studies with numerical TBM scoring systems were included. Literature pertaining to non-human, non-live subjects, single diagnostic tests, papers with no gold standard diagnosis, and non-English papers were excluded.
resultsWe reviewed 21 unique scoring systems, of which 4 have been externally validated. Key features of the scores (clinical, laboratory, microbiological, histopathological and radiological criteria, interpretation), outcomes (sensitivity, specificity) and study population (location, demographics, subgroups) were described.
conclusionWe suggest Thwaites (2002) and Marais (2010) as first-line TBM screening tests due to high sensitivities and extensive external validation, however clinicians should consider scores specific to their patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.