Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35479296›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2022

Multiplex bacterial PCR in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of non-intubated patients with suspected pulmonary infection: a quasi-experimental study.

Anna Salina, Desiree M Schumann, Léo Franchetti, Kathleen Jahn, Kurosch Purkabiri, Raphael Müller, Werner Strobel, Nina Khanna, Michael Tamm, Daiana Stolz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna SalinaClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Desiree M SchumannClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Léo FranchettiClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kathleen JahnClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kurosch PurkabiriClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Raphael MüllerClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Werner StrobelClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Nina KhannaClinic of Infectiology and Hospital Hygiene, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Michael TammClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Daiana StolzClinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early pathogen identification in pulmonary infection is crucial to guide antibacterial therapy and decrease length of hospital stay. We hypothesise that compared to conventional diagnostic methods, a multiplex bacterial polymerase chain reaction assay has a higher diagnostic yield in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and improved clinical outcomes in patients with suspicion of pulmonary infection. Methods: A prospective, monocentric, quasi-experimental, observational study was carried out. Unselected patients with suspected pulmonary infection who underwent bronchoscopy with BAL were included in the study over a period of 1 year. In addition to conventional diagnostic methods, a multiplex PCR bacterial assay was performed in BAL on a 2 week on: 1 week off pre-determined schedule. No therapeutic recommendations were provided to the treating physician. Results: 605 cases were included, 54% of whom were immunosuppressed. Conventional diagnostic methods detected 56% of the bacteria evidenced by PCR. PCR failed to detect bacteria in 4% of the cases with a positive conventional diagnostic result. After bronchoscopy, 42% of the patients received antibacterial therapy for pulmonary infection for a median of 12 antibiotic days. There was no statistically significant difference in length of hospital stay (median 8 Conclusions: A multiplex bacterial PCR detected more bacteria in BAL fluid than conventional diagnostic methods. However, without a specific antibiotic stewardship approach and a clear understanding of the clinical implications of a positive or negative PCR result, the PCR results did not influence clinical outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID35479296
PMCPMC9035597
OpenAlexW4224228199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.