ReviewBMC pulmonary medicine2023
Efficacy of three sputum specimens for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease.
Review in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastric Aspirate Isolate Demonstrates Strain-Level Concordance With Sputum Isolate in Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of Induced Sputum and Bronchoalveolar Lavage Cultures in Diagnosing Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Serodiagnosis ofIJTLD open · 2024Article
- Article
- Time to diagnosis of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease and longitudinal changes on CT before diagnosis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Is It Time to Say Goodbye to Sputum?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of nanopore sequencing technology in nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease.American journal of translational research · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease (MAC-PD), diagnosis requires a positive culture from at least two separate expectorated sputum specimens. The optimal number of sputum examinations remains unclear.
objectiveThis study sought to elucidate the diagnostic yield of acid-fast bacilli in MAC-PD using 3 sputum specimens and to clarify the clinical characteristics of patients with MAC-PD diagnosed using 3 sputum specimens. Furthermore, we investigated the correlation between increased number of sputum specimens and diagnostic yield.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of 139 patients with MAC-PD diagnosed at Toho University Omori Medical Center for whom at least three sputum specimens were examined before treatment from November 2014 through June 2021. Patients were classified into the 3-sputum diagnosed and the non-3 sputum diagnosed groups based on diagnostic procedure; clinical and radiological characteristics were compared. We also assessed diagnostic yield with the increased number of sputum specimens.
resultsDiagnostic yield with 3 sputum specimens was 16.5% (23/139). The 3-sputum diagnosed group had a lower body mass index [18.6(17-19.5) vs. 19.5(18-21.5); p = 0.014], and higher chest CT score [9(6.5-13) vs. 6(4-9); p = 0.011] including cavitary lesions (39.1% vs. 19%; p = 0.037) compared with the non-3 sputum diagnosed group. When the number of sputum specimens was increased to 6, the diagnostic yield increased to 23.7% (33/139).
conclusionDiagnostic yield with 3 sputum specimens was 16.5%. Patients diagnosed using 3 sputum specimens had more severe chest CT findings including cavitary lesions. Increasing the number of sputum specimens to 6 improved diagnostic yield by 7.2%.
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.