Observational studyPloS one2022
Analysis of predicted factors for bronchoalveolar lavage recovery failure: An observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suction pressure levels during bronchial obstruction are related to bronchoalveolar lavage recovery failure: A clinical trial.Medicine · 2025Trial
- Clinical variability of equine asthma phenotypes and analysis of diagnostic steps in phenotype differentiation.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Safety of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Hematological Patients with Thrombocytopenia. A Retrospective Cohort Study.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovery rate should generally be more than 30% for effective diagnosis. However, there have been no reports investigating a target bronchus for BAL, and the cause of BAL recovery failure is uncertain. Therefore, this study detected predictive factors for BAL recovery failure through investigations on a target bronchus for BAL by using a 3D image analysis system. Therefore, this study detected predictive factors for BAL recovery failure. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively collected data from 338 adult patients who underwent BAL procedures at Fukujuji Hospital from June 2018-March 2022. Factors correlated with the BAL recovery rate were detected. Furthermore, the patients were divided into the failure group (recovery rate <30%; 36 patients) and the success group (recovery rate ≥30%; 302 patients), and data were compared between the two groups by analysing the target bronchus by using a 3D image analysis system.
resultsThe patients in the failure group were older (median 74.5 years old [IQR 68.0-79.0] vs. median 70.0 years old [IQR 59.0-76.0], p = 0.016), more likely to be male (n = 27 [75.0%] vs. n = 172 [57.0%], p = 0.048), more likely to have COPD (n = 7 [19.4%] vs. n = 14 [4.6%], p = 0.003), and more likely to perform a target site of BAL other than the middle/lingual lobe (n = 11 [30.5%] vs. n = 35 [11.6%], p = 0.004) than those in the success group. The area of the bronchial wall was positively related to the recovery rate (r = 0.141, p = 0.009), and the area of the bronchial wall in the failure group was lower than that in the success group (median 10.5 mm2 [interquartile range (IQR) 8.1-14.6] vs. median 14.5 mm2 [11.4-19.0], p<0.001).
conclusionThe study shows that a thin bronchial wall, COPD, and a target site of BAL other than the middle/lingual lobe were identified as the predicted factors for BAL recovery failure. The weakness of the bronchial wall might cause bronchial collapse during the BAL procedure.
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.