In the reported retrospective analysis, we chose a combination of electronic BLZ945 purchase ICD-10 query with a search string approach to identify a maximum number of cases where any of the diagnoses of interest (meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis, or ADEM) had been considered. We then verified and categorized the selected cases, into bacterial and/or aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis, and/or ADEM, based on documented discharge diagnoses. In a blinded fashion,

we applied the BC algorithms for aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis, and/or ADEM to the same cases using clinical parameters as they were available in the medical records. Using a standard procedure for the evaluation of a new test (BC algorithm) with an imperfect reference standard Alpelisib mouse (the clinical diagnosis) we tested levels of overall, positive or negative agreement [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32]. Individual subanalyses were performed to investigate any discrepancies between clinical diagnoses and BC categories. As evident from this study, the Brighton Collaboration case definitions can be applied independently and consistently to provide an objective, transparent and evidence-based

method for case ascertainment. Based on simple clinical parameters combined with imaging and laboratory findings, each clinical case can be “dissected” into separate clinical variables, to be analyzed using pre-defined algorithms yielding standardized and examiner-independent observations. Brighton Collaboration case definitions are primarily used in the assessment of known or postulated adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in regulatory

settings, observational studies and clinical trials. The case verification process is hereby separated from the causality analysis. second In the first two years of the study period reported herein, we found an increased incidence of mumps meningitis (data not shown). Those cases that have now been confirmed using BC criteria could then be analyzed further with respect to vaccination history, laboratory results, and other epidemiologic data to discriminate between vaccine failures versus mumps outbreak in an under-vaccinated population versus adverse events following immunization. This study has several limitations. Retrospective chart reviews provide only limited insight into the clinician’s decision making process. Exclusion criteria in the BC definitions (such as: “no other illness to explain clinical signs and symptoms” [8]) are difficult to apply in retrospective settings where the investigator relies on the documentation of pertinent negatives. Incomplete documentation of medical data in the patient records may lead to underreporting of cases when a standard algorithm is used.