Clinical Utility of CSF Correction Factors for Traumatic Lumbar Puncture in Adults.

IF 2.3 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology. Clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200350
Ryan W Zhou, Kamala Sangam, Adrian Budhram
{"title":"Clinical Utility of CSF Correction Factors for Traumatic Lumbar Puncture in Adults.","authors":"Ryan W Zhou, Kamala Sangam, Adrian Budhram","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify indicators of false pleocytosis in adults with traumatic lumbar puncture (LP), and determine specificities and sensitivities of commonly used CSF correction factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults who underwent 4-tube CSF collection were reviewed. Study inclusion required elevated tube 1 red blood cell (RBC) count, tube 1 pleocytosis, and normalized tube 4 RBC count. Tube 4 white blood cell (WBC) count served as the reference standard. Specificities and sensitivities of 3 correction factors (1 WBC:500 RBC, 1 WBC:1000 RBC, and 1 WBC:1500 RBC) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred ninety-five adults were included. Among them, 106 (54%) had false tube 1 pleocytosis; these patients had a significantly higher median CSF RBC count and lower median CSF WBC count than those with true tube 1 pleocytosis. Specificities and sensitivities of correction factors ranged from 71.7% to 29.2% and 84.3% to 97.8%, respectively; 1 WBC:500 RBC had highest specificity for pleocytosis, while 1 WBC:1500 RBC had highest sensitivity. Irrespective of correction factor used, false-positive and false-negative determinations of pleocytosis were usually mild (≤20 WBCs/μL).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Indicators of false pleocytosis in adults with traumatic LP include bloodier CSF and milder pleocytosis, suggesting that correction factors are most useful in such cases. Across correction factors, an expected specificity/sensitivity tradeoff is observed. Corrected CSF WBC counts suggesting only mild pleocytosis should be interpreted cautiously.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11341082/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To identify indicators of false pleocytosis in adults with traumatic lumbar puncture (LP), and determine specificities and sensitivities of commonly used CSF correction factors.

Methods: Adults who underwent 4-tube CSF collection were reviewed. Study inclusion required elevated tube 1 red blood cell (RBC) count, tube 1 pleocytosis, and normalized tube 4 RBC count. Tube 4 white blood cell (WBC) count served as the reference standard. Specificities and sensitivities of 3 correction factors (1 WBC:500 RBC, 1 WBC:1000 RBC, and 1 WBC:1500 RBC) were calculated.

Results: One hundred ninety-five adults were included. Among them, 106 (54%) had false tube 1 pleocytosis; these patients had a significantly higher median CSF RBC count and lower median CSF WBC count than those with true tube 1 pleocytosis. Specificities and sensitivities of correction factors ranged from 71.7% to 29.2% and 84.3% to 97.8%, respectively; 1 WBC:500 RBC had highest specificity for pleocytosis, while 1 WBC:1500 RBC had highest sensitivity. Irrespective of correction factor used, false-positive and false-negative determinations of pleocytosis were usually mild (≤20 WBCs/μL).

Discussion: Indicators of false pleocytosis in adults with traumatic LP include bloodier CSF and milder pleocytosis, suggesting that correction factors are most useful in such cases. Across correction factors, an expected specificity/sensitivity tradeoff is observed. Corrected CSF WBC counts suggesting only mild pleocytosis should be interpreted cautiously.

成人外伤性腰椎穿刺 CSF 校正因子的临床实用性。
目的确定外伤性腰椎穿刺(LP)成人假性红细胞增多症的指标,并确定常用 CSF 校正因子的特异性和敏感性:方法:对接受 4 管 CSF 采集的成人进行回顾性研究。纳入研究的要求是第 1 管红细胞(RBC)计数升高、第 1 管多细胞、第 4 管 RBC 计数正常。第 4 管白细胞 (WBC) 计数作为参考标准。计算了 3 个校正因子(1 WBC:500 RBC、1 WBC:1000 RBC 和 1 WBC:1500 RBC)的特异性和敏感性:结果:共纳入 195 名成人。其中,106 人(54%)患有假性管 1 多形性红细胞增多症;与真性管 1 多形性红细胞增多症患者相比,这些患者的中位 CSF RBC 计数明显较高,而中位 CSF WBC 计数较低。校正因子的特异性和灵敏度分别为 71.7% 至 29.2% 和 84.3% 至 97.8%;1 WBC:500 RBC 对多血症的特异性最高,而 1 WBC:1500 RBC 的灵敏度最高。无论使用哪种校正因子,假阳性和假阴性的胸腺细胞增多通常都很轻微(≤20 WBCs/μL):讨论:成人外伤性 LP 患者出现假性多核细胞增多的指标包括更多的血性 CSF 和更轻微的多核细胞增多,这表明校正因子在此类病例中最有用。不同校正因子的特异性/灵敏度会有不同。校正后的 CSF 白细胞计数仅提示轻微的多细胞症,应谨慎解读。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurology. Clinical practice
Neurology. Clinical practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信