ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2021
Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary microbiology and microbiota in adults with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Filamentous Fungi Infections: Yet Another Victim of COVID-19?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Early Empirical Anidulafungin Reduces the Prevalence of Invasive Candidiasis in Critically Ill Patients: A Case-control Study.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLower respiratory tract secretions (LRTS) like sputum and tracheal aspirates are frequently sent to the microbiology laboratory from patients with various respiratory pathologies. Improper collection techniques can lead to false-positive results, resulting in improper therapy. AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the percentage of contaminated samples sent to the microbiology laboratory, to establish the prevalence of
methodsA 10-year data survey was conducted to assess the differences in
resultsThe prevalence of
conclusionsThe study emphasises the importance of assessing the quality of sputum samples because of the high number of improperly collected samples sent to the microbiology laboratory.
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.