Evidence Hub

Outcome of childhood bacterial meningitis on three continents

Peltola H, Roine I, Kallio M, Pelkonen T

Scientific reports, 2021

2,123 participants · 25 citations

Abstract

Our objective was to quantify the differences in the outcomes from childhood bacterial meningitis (BM) and to describe the factors associated with them in different parts of the world. This study is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from five clinical BM trials conducted in Finland, Latin America (LatAm), and Angola between 1984 and 2017. As all data were collected uniformly, direct comparison of the series was possible. Associations between patient characteristics and death or dismal outcome-the triad of death, severe neurological sequelae, or deafness-were explored. In all, data on 2123 children with BM were analyzed. Etiology was confirmed in 95%, 83%, and 64%, in Finland, LatAm and Angola, respectively. The leading agents were Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Neisseria meningitidis. Dismal outcome was the end result for 54%, 31%, and 5% of children in Angola, LatAm, and Finland, respectively. Although underweight, anemia, and tardy arrival worsened prognoses in Angola and LatAm, it was the presenting condition that was central in terms of outcome. In multivariate analysis, the factors independently associated with dismal outcome were the study site (Angola vs. Finland, OR 11.91, 95% CI 5.54-25.63, p < 0.0001 or LatAm vs. Finland, OR 9.46, 95% CI 4.35-20.61, p < 0.0001), Glasgow Coma Score < 13 (OR 4.58, 95% CI 3.31-6.32, p < 0.0001), seizures (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.43-2.69), age < 1 year (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13-2.14, p = 0.007), and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,123 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free