ArticleAnnals of intensive care2020
Accuracy of the clinical pulmonary infection score to differentiate ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis from ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrical Impedance Tomography-Guided Airway Clearance in Elderly Patients With Severe Pneumonia: A Prospective Study.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Trial
- Association between clinical pulmonary infection score and mortality in patients with severe pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Hospital-adapted inhaled phage therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: a comparative pilot study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Analysis of Bacterial Metabolites in Breath Gas of Critically Ill Patients for Diagnosis of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia-A Proof of Concept Study.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Ventilator-associated pneumonia: pathobiological heterogeneity and diagnostic challenges.Nature communications · 2024Review
- VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation): protocol for a multicenter randomized open-label trial of watchful waiting versus antimicrobial therapy for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis.Critical care science · 2024Article
- Early prediction of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critical care patients: a machine learning model.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- A Narrative Review on the Approach to Antimicrobial Use in Ventilated Patients with Multidrug Resistant Organisms in Respiratory Samples-To Treat or Not to Treat? That Is the Question.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Predicting pneumonia during hospitalization in flail chest patients using machine learning approaches.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Effect of antibiotic therapy on the prognosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.Annals of intensive care · 2021Article
- Clinical features ofZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2021Article
- Relationship of Multiplex Molecular Pneumonia Panel Results With Hospital Outcomes and Clinical Variables.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Airway Pseudomonas aeruginosa density in mechanically ventilated patients: clinical impact and relation to therapeutic efficacy of antibiotics.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
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 7 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis (VAT) from Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) may be challenging for clinicians, yet their management currently differs. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) to differentiate VAT and VAP.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis based on the data from 2 independent prospective cohorts. Patients of the TAVeM database with a diagnosis of VAT (n = 320) or VAP (n = 369) were included in the derivation cohort. Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Centre of Lille University Hospital between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017 who had a diagnosis of VAT (n = 70) or VAP (n = 139) were included in the validation cohort. The accuracy of the CPIS to differentiate VAT from VAP was assessed within the 2 cohorts by calculating sensitivity and specificity values, establishing the ROC curves and choosing the best threshold according to the Youden index.
resultsThe areas under ROC curves of CPIS to differentiate VAT from VAP were calculated at 0.76 (95% CI [0.72-0.79]) in the derivation cohort and 0.67 (95% CI [0.6-0.75]) in the validation cohort. A CPIS value ≥ 7 was associated with the highest Youden index in both cohorts. With this cut-off, sensitivity and specificity were respectively found at 0.51 and 0.88 in the derivation cohort, and at 0.45 and 0.89 in the validation cohort.
conclusionsA CPIS value ≥ 7 reproducibly allowed to differentiate VAT from VAP with high specificity and PPV and moderate sensitivity and NPV in our derivation and validation cohorts.
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.