ArticleBMJ open2018
Clinical features, bacteriology of endotracheal aspirates and treatment outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and community-acquired pneumonia in an intensive care unit in Taiwan with an emphasis on eosinophilia versus non-eosinophilia: a retrospective case-control study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decreased capsaicin cough reflex sensitivity predicts hospitalisation due to COPD.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Article
- Clinical Features and Antimicrobial Susceptibility ofInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
- Dynamics of the lung microbiome in intensive care patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and community-acquired pneumonia.Scientific reports · 2020Observational
- The association between airflow limitation and blood eosinophil levels with treatment outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and prolonged mechanical ventilation.Scientific reports · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe clinical implications of blood eosinophil level in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission are still unknown. Thus, this study aimed to compare the features of such patients with and without blood eosinophilia.
designThis was a retrospective case-control study.
settingAn ICU of a medical centre in central Taiwan.
participantsA total of 262 patients with COPD and CAP requiring IMV and ICU admission.
resultsOf all participants (n=262), 32 (12.2%) had an eosinophil percentage (EP) >2% and 169 (64.5%) had an absolute eosinophil count (AEC) >300 cells/µL. Regardless of whether 2% or 300 cells/µL was used as a cut-off value, the eosinophilia group were slightly older (years) (82.9±5.4 vs 78.1±9.1, p=0.000 and 79.2±8.4 vs 77.6±9.6, p=0.246, respectively), and had a higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity (%) (56.0±8.0 vs 51.3±11.6, p=0.005 and 53.1±11.2 vs 49.5±11.2, p=0.013, respectively), less severe spirometric classification (p=0.008 and p=0.001, respectively), and lower white cell count 10
conclusionsThe results of this study have significant clinical implications and should be considered when making treatment decisions for the management of patients with COPD and CAP requiring IMV and ICU admission.
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.