ArticleLa Tunisie medicale
The place of the bronchoalveolar lavage in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease: a descriptive and qualitative study.
Article in La Tunisie medicale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of sarcoidosis severity: a retrospective study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterstitial lung disease represents a challenge and consists in more than 200 entities. Their diagnoses are assessed through a multidisciplinary approach including pulmonologists, radiologists, pathologists and biologists. BAL analysis is useful mainly when clinical and radiological findings aren't suggestive of an etiology. Even if, the indication of BAL is consensual, its real place as a diagnostic mean remains non consensual.
aimTo describe the BAL findings and to analyse the perceptions of the pulmonologists, anaesthesiologists and pathologists implicated in the interpretation of the BAL data, that are related to the presentation and the validity of the results.
methodsthe authors performed a descriptive study about BAL results during an 8-year-period (2010-2018) and a qualitative study assessing the pulmonologists, anaesthesiologists and pathologists' opinions concerning the different results performed in the same institution. Two questionnaires were conceived with participation of different experts and satisfaction scores were calculated.
results2508 BAL were recorded including 1320 women (53%) and 1188 men (47%) with a sex-ratio (H/F) of 0,9. The mean age of the patients was 51 years. The mean response delay was 3.25 days. An accurate diagnosis was retained in 24.3%. It consisted in infection evoked in 13.89% cases. Eosinophilic pneumonia was evoked in 0.35% cases. 15.01% cases presented erythrophagocytosis with a golde score>100 favouring active alveolar haemorrhage with occult alveolar haemorrhage. Lipoproteinosis was diagnosed in 2 cases. Adenocarcinoma was retained in 1.04% cases and lymphoma in 0.16% cases. Langerhans cell histiocytosis was confirmed in 1.51% cases. In the other cases, cellular profile was not specific evoking tuberculosis or sarcoidosis in 316 cases with a CD4/CD8 ratio superior to 1,6 and the diagnoses of tuberculosis or hypersensitivity pneumonia in 202 cases with a CD4/CD8 ratio inferior to 1,2. Concerning the questionnaire-based study, 50 pulmonologists and anaesthesiologists attributed a mean score of 7.96/10 (DS=0.55) concerning the presentation of the results and 9.28/15 (DS=0.77) concerning the quality and validity of the results. On the other hand, the mean satisfaction score rated by pathologists reached 24/40.
conclusionBAL results could be helpful for the management of interstitial lung disease depending on the experience of pathologists and a good communication between pulmonologists, anaesthesiologists and pathologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35261013PMC9003584W4287507157What 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.