ArticleSarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG2021
Bronchoscopic performance of bronchoalveolar lavage in germany - a call for standardization.
Article in Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Expert consensus on airway lavage therapy for adult burn patients (2026 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Flexible bronchoscopy in the intensive care unit: the FLEXICARE survey.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Nasal mucosa micronuclei as early biomarkers of effect in workers exposed to airborne pollutants: a literature overview.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- A Performance Comparison of Different YOLOv7 Networks for High-Accuracy Cell Classification in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Utilising the Adam Optimiser and Label Smoothing.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a widely used clinical tool in diagnosing interstitial lung diseases. Although there are recommendations and guidelines, the procedure is not completely standardized. Varying approaches likely influence the conclusiveness of BAL data and may be one reason for the divergent judgement of their value between different centers.
objectivesTo evaluate how BAL is performed in Germany using an electronically based survey.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey among all members of the German Respiratory Society.
results608 members responded to the survey and of these 500 perform lavages. Most bronchoscopists (344/500) do not use a tube and have no anesthesiologist present during the procedure (405/500). Propofol is used by 76.8% and midazolam by 67.9% (n = 405), often in combination. A major difference was noted regarding the total volume of instillation. Many respondents use a predefined fixed amount of instilled volume (202/500), whereas an almost equal number use variable volumes based on the recovery (196/500). The minimum recovery volume predefined by 217/499 ranged from 3-150 ml (median 30 ml; mean 42.2 ± 55.1 ml). Most respondents did not transport their samples in special medium (61.5%) or on ice (72.8%). The average time between recovery and arrival at the lab was 115.6±267.0 min (n = 323).
conclusionThis study shows the broad spectrum of variations in the performance of BAL in Germany, which could have a negative effect on the method's clinical value. There is a need for training and standardization of BAL performance.
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.