Discrimination between viral and nonviral meningitis by visually analyzed and quantitative electroencephalography.

P Bartel, C M Schutte, P Becker, C van der Meyden
{"title":"Discrimination between viral and nonviral meningitis by visually analyzed and quantitative electroencephalography.","authors":"P Bartel,&nbsp;C M Schutte,&nbsp;P Becker,&nbsp;C van der Meyden","doi":"10.1177/155005949903000202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A prospective study was conducted to assess the ability of the visually analyzed electroencephalogram (VEEG), the quantitative EEG (QEEG) and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to discriminate between patients with viral and nonviral meningitis. The 55 subjects, aged 14-75 years, fell into one of the following categories: viral (n = 12), bacterial (n = 19), tuberculous (n = 16) or cryptococcal (n = 8) meningitis. EEG recordings and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores were obtained within 48 hours of admission to hospital. The sensitivity of the VEEG and QEEG for the prediction of patients with nonviral meningitis (true positives in this context) attained reasonably high values of 70% and 80%, respectively. In contrast, the sensitivity of the GCS was only 38%. Each of the three tests achieved high degrees of consistency in this regard with positive predictive values of 94% or better. The specificity for each of the three tests was high, 100% for the VEEG and the GCS and 82% for the QEEG indicating a high probability for the correct prediction of viral meningitis (true negatives). The consistency of this prediction was, however, poor due to negative predictive values of only 53% for the QEEG, 48% for the VEEG and 32% for the GCS. The QEEG results did not reveal any obvious advantages over the VEEG. Rather the assessment of the occurrence of particular VEEG abnormalities showed that patients with delta abnormalities had a very high probability of nonviral meningitis. At the other end of the spectrum, all normal VEEGs occurred in viral meningitis. In important respects the predictive ability of the EEG was superior to that of the GCS. While there was statistically significant agreement between the VEEG and GCS, the degree of agreement was poor. This study indicates that the EEG is a valuable and probably underestimated test in the acute phase of meningitis and provides complementary information to the GCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":75713,"journal":{"name":"Clinical EEG (electroencephalography)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/155005949903000202","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical EEG (electroencephalography)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/155005949903000202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

A prospective study was conducted to assess the ability of the visually analyzed electroencephalogram (VEEG), the quantitative EEG (QEEG) and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to discriminate between patients with viral and nonviral meningitis. The 55 subjects, aged 14-75 years, fell into one of the following categories: viral (n = 12), bacterial (n = 19), tuberculous (n = 16) or cryptococcal (n = 8) meningitis. EEG recordings and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores were obtained within 48 hours of admission to hospital. The sensitivity of the VEEG and QEEG for the prediction of patients with nonviral meningitis (true positives in this context) attained reasonably high values of 70% and 80%, respectively. In contrast, the sensitivity of the GCS was only 38%. Each of the three tests achieved high degrees of consistency in this regard with positive predictive values of 94% or better. The specificity for each of the three tests was high, 100% for the VEEG and the GCS and 82% for the QEEG indicating a high probability for the correct prediction of viral meningitis (true negatives). The consistency of this prediction was, however, poor due to negative predictive values of only 53% for the QEEG, 48% for the VEEG and 32% for the GCS. The QEEG results did not reveal any obvious advantages over the VEEG. Rather the assessment of the occurrence of particular VEEG abnormalities showed that patients with delta abnormalities had a very high probability of nonviral meningitis. At the other end of the spectrum, all normal VEEGs occurred in viral meningitis. In important respects the predictive ability of the EEG was superior to that of the GCS. While there was statistically significant agreement between the VEEG and GCS, the degree of agreement was poor. This study indicates that the EEG is a valuable and probably underestimated test in the acute phase of meningitis and provides complementary information to the GCS.

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
目视分析与定量脑电图鉴别病毒性与非病毒性脑膜炎。
进行了一项前瞻性研究,以评估视觉分析脑电图(VEEG)、定量脑电图(QEEG)和格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)区分病毒性和非病毒性脑膜炎患者的能力。55名受试者,年龄14-75岁,属于以下类别之一:病毒性脑膜炎(n = 12),细菌性脑膜炎(n = 19),结核性脑膜炎(n = 16)或隐球菌性脑膜炎(n = 8)。在入院48小时内获得脑电图记录和格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)。VEEG和QEEG预测非病毒性脑膜炎患者(在这种情况下为真阳性)的灵敏度分别达到了70%和80%的合理高值。相比之下,GCS的敏感性仅为38%。在这方面,三个测试中的每一个都达到了高度的一致性,阳性预测值为94%或更高。三种检测方法的特异性都很高,VEEG和GCS为100%,QEEG为82%,表明正确预测病毒性脑膜炎(真阴性)的概率很高。然而,该预测的一致性较差,因为QEEG的阴性预测值仅为53%,VEEG为48%,GCS为32%。QEEG结果没有显示出比VEEG有任何明显的优势。相反,对特殊VEEG异常的评估表明,delta异常的患者患非病毒性脑膜炎的可能性非常高。另一方面,所有正常VEEGs都发生在病毒性脑膜炎中。在重要方面,脑电图的预测能力优于GCS。虽然VEEG和GCS之间有统计学意义上的一致性,但一致性程度较差。这项研究表明,脑电图在脑膜炎急性期是一个有价值的,可能被低估的测试,并提供补充信息的GCS。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Brain Death Effects on EEG of Drugs and Toxic Substances Disorders of Consciousness Neuromonitoring and Emergency EEG EEG Signal Acquisition
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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