ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2012
Comparison of sputum and nasopharyngeal swab specimens for molecular diagnosis of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Legionella pneumophila.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Serological Tests forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiology, temporal trends and co-infection of 13 respiratory pathogens in 32,125 children: a 3-year retrospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- How to identify respiratory pathogens in primary health care - a review on the benefits, prospects and pitfalls in using point of care tests.Infection · 2025Review
- Case report: The value of early application of mNGS technology in the diagnosis and treatment of severe Legionnaires' disease: reports of two cases with different outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A real-time PCR assay for the quantification ofJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024Article
- Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on the epidemiology ofHeliyon · 2023Article
- Pre-Pandemic Distribution of Bacterial Species in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens from Pediatric and Adult Patients Detected via RT-PCR Using the Allplex Respiratory Panel.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Roles of Procalcitonin and Other Tools in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Association between lipid profiles and viral respiratory infections in human sputum samples.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Genmark ePlex® and QIAstat-Dx® respiratory pathogen panels in detecting bacterial targets in lower respiratory tract specimens.BMC microbiology · 2021Article
- Respiratory pathogen diversity and co-infections in rural Zambia.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021Article
- Real-world antibiotic use in treating acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in China: Evidence from the ACURE study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Multicenter Evaluation of the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory Panel for Detection of Viruses and Bacteria in Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Mycoplasma pneumoniae detection in children with respiratory tract infections and influence on management - a retrospective cohort study in Switzerland.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2020Article
- Comparing the yield of oropharyngeal swabs and sputum for detection of 11 common pathogens in hospitalized children with lower respiratory tract infection.Virology journal · 2019Article
- Diagnostic performance of multiplex PCR on pulmonary samples versus nasopharyngeal aspirates in community-acquired severe lower respiratory tract infections.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2018Article
- Guideline for Antibiotic Use in Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia.Infection & chemotherapy · 2018Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2 for Detection of Viruses and Bacteria in Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Respiratory infections in elderly people: Viral role in a resident population of elderly care centers in Lisbon, winter 2013-2014.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiation of atypical pathogens is important for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). In this study, we compared sputum and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) for use in detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP), Chlamydophila pneumoniae (CP), and Legionella pneumophila (LP), using Seeplex PneumoBacter ACE Detection Assay (PneumoBacter; Seegene).
methodsSputum and NPS specimens were collected from patients in 15 hospitals. DNA was extracted from sputum using QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen) and from NPS using easyMAG (bioMérieux). Both types of specimens were evaluated by multiplex PCR using PneumoBacter. To determine the diagnostic performance of this assay, sputum samples were also tested using BD ProbeTec ET Atypical Pneumonia Assay (APA; Becton Dickinson).
resultsAmong 217 sputum and NPS, 20 (9.2%), 2 (0.9%), and 0 sputum were positive for MP, LP, and CP, respectively, whereas 8 (3.7%) NPS were positive for MP. The sputum APA test yielded 186, 206, and 204 interpretable results for MP, LP, and CP, respectively. Of these, 21 (11.3%) were positive for MP, 2 (1.0%) were positive for LP, and 0 samples were positive for CP. Compared to APA, the sensitivity and specificity of the sputum assay for MP were 95.2% and 100.0%, respectively, whereas for the NPS assay, these were 38.1% and 93.9%. Sputum testing was more sensitive than NPS testing (P=0.002). For LP and CP diagnosis, PneumoBacter and APA tests agreed 100%.
conclusionsSpecimen type is crucial and sputum is preferred over NPS for simultaneous detection of MP, LP, and CP using multiplex PCR in CAP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.