ArticleERJ open research2023
Phenotyping empyema by pleural fluid culture results and macroscopic appearance: an 8-year retrospective study.
Article in ERJ open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Parallel Group, 1:1 Randomised, Pilot Study Comparing the Clinical Efficacy and Bleeding Risk Between Low Dose and Standard Dose Intrapleural Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Adults With Pleural Infection.Respirology case reports · 2026Trial
- The Influence of COVID-19 on the Composition and Drug Resistance of Pleural Effusion in Shandong Province.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Article
- What is new in pleural infections?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Review
- Prognostic significance of pleural fluid microbiological positivity in pleural infection: a bicentric 10-year retrospective observational study.Respiratory research · 2025Observational
- Silicosis initially presenting with empyema.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Infective Pleural Effusions-A Comprehensive Narrative Review Article.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical impact of phenotyping empyema is poorly described. This study was designed to evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes based on the two readily available parameters, pleural fluid culture status and macroscopic fluid appearance. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with empyema hospitalised between 2013 and 2020. Empyema was classified into culture-positive empyema (CPE) or culture-negative empyema (CNE) and pus-appearing empyema (PAE) or non-pus-appearing empyema (non-PAE) based on the pleural fluid culture status and macroscopic fluid appearance, respectively. Results: Altogether, 212 patients had confirmed empyema (CPE: n=188, CNE: n=24; PAE: n=118, non-PAE: n=94). The cohort was predominantly male (n=163, 76.9%) with a mean age of 65.0±13.6 years. Most patients (n=180, 84.9%) had at least one comorbidity. Patients with CPE had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (19.1% Conclusion: Empyema is a heterogeneous disease with different clinical characteristics. Phenotyping empyema into different subclasses based on pleural fluid microbiological results and macroscopic fluid appearance provides insight into the underlying bacteriology, source of infection and subsequent clinical outcomes.
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.