ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Compared the Microbiota Profiles between Samples from Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Endotracheal Aspirates in Severe Pneumonia: A Real-World Experience.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- No difference in microbial diversity between bronchoalveolar lavage and tracheal sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing mini bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal aspirate in diagnosing bacterial pneumonia in the intensive care unit.IJID regions · 2025Article
- Lung microbiome signatures and explainable predictive modeling of glucocorticoid response in severe community acquired pneumonia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and Prognosis Evaluation of Severe Pneumonia by Lung Ultrasound Score Combined with Serum Inflammatory Markers.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Lower respiratory tract sampling from endotracheal aspirate (EA) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) are both common methods to identify pathogens in severe pneumonia. However, the difference between these two methods in microbiota profiles remains unclear. We compared the microbiota profiles of pairwise EA and BAL samples in ICU patients with respiratory failure due to severe pneumonia. We prospectively enrolled 50 ICU patients with new onset of pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. EA and BAL were performed on the first ICU day, and samples were analyzed for microbial community composition via 16S rRNA metagenomic sequencing. Pathogens were identified in culture medium from BAL samples in 21 (42%) out of 50 patients. No difference was observed in the antibiotic prescription pattern, ICU mortality, or hospital mortality between BAL-positive and BAL-negative patients. The microbiota profiles in the EA and BAL samples are similar with respect to diversity, microbial composition, and microbial community correlations. The antibiotic treatment regimen was rarely changed based on the BAL findings. The samples from BAL did not provide more information than EA in the microbiota profiles. We suggest that EA is more useful than BAL for microbiome identification in mechanically ventilated patients.
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.