ReviewRevue des maladies respiratoires2017
[Description and role of bacteriological techniques in the management of lung infections].
Review in Revue des maladies respiratoires, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of mNGS in the study of pulmonary microbiome in pneumoconiosis complicated with pulmonary infection patients and exploration of potential biomarkers.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Pharmacokinetics, efficacy and tolerance of cefoxitin in the treatment of cefoxitin-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales infections in critically ill patients: a retrospective single-center study.Annals of intensive care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute pneumonias occur in a variety of clinical settings and accurate identification of bacterial causes is extremely important. No microbiological tool is either 100 % sensitive or 100 % specific, and despite investigations, aetiology remains unanswered in more than 30 % of pneumonia. No sample may be necessary for patients treated as outpatients, non invasive respiratory specimens are preferred in hospitalised individuals (community or healthcare associated), while invasive specimens are used as second line for community acquired pneumonia (CAP) in intensive care, and in the first line where pneumonia occurs in immunosuppressed patients. Bacterial cultures have an important place, if the sample is taken before the introduction of antibiotic therapy. Some contexts may justify the use of blood cultures, testing for urinary antigens or serology. PCR is already becoming available as a daily service but the short-term future probably belongs to molecular multiplex panels capable of detecting many microorganisms within hours, especially in severe CAP resuscitation and in pneumonia in the immunosuppressed. High-throughput sequencing nucleotide techniques will soon revolutionize microbiological diagnosis in respiratory medicine, as in other areas of infectious diseases.
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.