ArticleFujita medical journal2019
Sputum Gram stain for diagnosing causative bacterial pathogens and guiding antimicrobial therapies in community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Fujita medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sputum Gram Stain for Bacterial Pathogen Diagnosis in Community-acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Yield.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe clinical role of sputum Gram stain for rapid etiologic pathogen diagnosis in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains an unresolved controversy. Variability in protocols and reporting of diagnostic performance in different studies has hampered assessments of clinical utility and interpretation. Since the last meta-analysis published in 1996, several reports and resources to accurately evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of sputum Gram stain have become available. Therefore, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical validity and utility of sputum Gram stain.
methodsWe will search PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception through July 30, 2018, with no language restriction and perform a full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include prospective and retrospective studies that assess sputum Gram stain in adults (aged ≥18 years) with CAP. Two reviewers will independently extract data and rate each study's validity with standard quality assessment tools. We will subsequently perform standard and latent-class random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy and yield. Finally, we will assess the totality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for diagnostic tests and strategies.
resultsResults of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will provide a 30-year synopsis of clinical evidence on sputum Gram stain in patients with CAP.
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.