ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Bronchoscopic Diagnosis of Severe Respiratory Infections.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Expert consensus on airway lavage therapy for adult burn patients (2026 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Plasma IL-6 level predict the risk of in-hospital mortality in HIV-associated pneumocystis pneumonia.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Post-flexible Bronchoscopy Escherichia coli Empyema: A Rare Complication or an Inflammatory Bacterial Translocation?Cureus · 2025Article
- Airway anomalies in flexible bronchoscopy for pediatric chronic cough: predictive value of specific clinical symptoms.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Approach to Pulmonary Complications in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: To Biopsy or Not?Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in intensive care remains an area of uncertainty and involves a complex balancing of risks and benefits. Due to the frequent colonisation of the lower respiratory tract in mechanically ventilated patients, there is an ever-present possibility of microbiological samples being contaminated by bystander organisms. This, coupled with the frequency of alveolar infiltrates arising from sterile insults, risks over-treatment and antimicrobial-associated harm. The use of bronchoscopic sampling to obtain protected lower respiratory samples has long been advocated to overcome this problem. The use of bronchoscopy further enables accurate cytological assessment of the alveolar space and direct inspection of the proximal airways for signs of fungal infection or alternative pathologies. With a growing range of molecular techniques, including those based on nucleic acid amplification and even alveolar visualisation and direct bacterial detection, the potential for bronchoscopy is increasing concomitantly. Despite this, there remain concerns regarding the safety of the technique and its benefits versus less invasive sampling techniques. These discussions are reflected in the lack of consensus among international guidelines on the topic. This review will consider the benefits and challenges of diagnostic bronchoscopy in the context of severe respiratory infection.
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.