ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2020
Pathogenic characteristics of sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from patients with lower respiratory tract infection in a large teaching hospital in China: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance in patients with pulmonary infection: a retrospective tertiary hospital-based study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of sputum sample quality on sputum culture results: a retrospective analysis of clinical microbiology sputum culture data spanning 10 years.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Phage characterization analysis in respiratory samples from infected patients based on metagenomic next-generation sequencing.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Genomic and clinical insights into multidrug-resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of targeted next-generation sequencing in suspected lower respiratory tract infections of patients with cancer: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Rapid detection ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Value of Targeted Next-generation Sequencing in Pulmonary Mycobacterial Infections.Current medical science · 2024Article
- Deep longitudinal lower respiratory tract microbiome profiling reveals genome-resolved functional and evolutionary dynamics in critical illness.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The agreement between bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchial wash and sputum culture: a retrospective study.Infection · 2024Article
- Article
- Prevalence of bacteria, fungi, and virus coinfections with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant among patients with severe COVID-19 in Guangzhou, China, winter 2022.Biosafety and health · 2024Article
- Efficacy of targeted next generation sequencing for pathogen detection in lower respiratory tract infections.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Comparative study of diagnostic efficacy of sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimens in community-acquired pneumonia children treated with fiberoptic bronchoscopy.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing for pulmonary infection diagnosis in patients unsuitable for bronchoalveolar lavage.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Value of sputum Gram stain, sputum culture, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid Gram stain in predicting single bacterial pathogen among children with community-acquired pneumonia.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- The performance of detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in lung biopsy tissue by metagenomic next-generation sequencing.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- Alterations of the Human Lung and Gut Microbiomes in Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinomas and Distant Metastasis.Microbiology spectrum · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLower respiratory tract infection (LRIs) is very common both in terms of community-acquired infection and hospital-acquired infection. Sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) are the most important specimens obtained from patients with LRI. The choice of antibiotic with which to treat LRI usually depends on the antimicrobial sensitivity of bacteria isolated from sputum and BALF. However, differences in the antimicrobial sensitivity of pathogens isolated from sputum and BALF have not been evaluated.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted to analyze the differences between sputum and BALF samples in terms of pathogen isolation and antimicrobial sensitivity in hospitalized patients with LRI.
resultsBetween 2013 and 2015, quality evaluation of sputum samples was not conducted before performing sputum culture; however, between 2016 and 2018, quality evaluation of sputum samples was conducted first, and only quality-assured samples were cultured. The numbers of sputum and BALF in 2013-2015 were 15,549 and 1671, while those in 2016-2018 were 12,055 and 3735, respectively. The results of pathogen culture showed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Hemophilus influenzae, Escherichia coli, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Streptococcus pneumoniae were in the top ten pathogens isolated from sputum and BALF. An antimicrobial susceptibility test showed that the susceptibility of BALF isolates to most antibiotics was higher compared with the susceptibility of sputum isolates, especially after quality control of sputum samples (2016-2018).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that caution is needed in making therapeutic choices for patients with LRI when using antimicrobial sensitivity results from sputum isolates as opposed to BALF isolates.
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.