ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Diagnostic Role of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Patients with Suspected SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia and Negative Upper Respiratory Tract Swab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The added role of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in SARS-CoV-2 detection in hospitalized patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and at least one negative nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) has yet to be definitively established. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize data from the literature on the diagnostic yield of BAL in this context. We searched Medline and Embase for all studies reporting outcomes of interest published up to October 2021. Two authors reviewed all titles/abstracts and retrieved the selected full texts according to predefined selection criteria. The summary estimate was derived using the random-effects model. Thirteen original studies, involving 868 patients, were included. The summary estimate of proportions of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in BAL fluid in patients with at least one previous negative NPS was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 11-30%). Moreover, microbiological tests of BAL fluid led to the identification of other pathogens, mainly bacteria, in up to two-thirds of cases. BAL plays a crucial role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and previous negative NPS, as it allowed to detect the infection in a significant proportion of subjects, who would have been otherwise misclassified, with relevant implications in the prevention of disease spread, especially in hospital settings.
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.