ArticlePneumonia (Nathan Qld.)2025
Can clinical findings at admission allow withholding of antibiotics in patients hospitalized for community acquired pneumonia when a test for a respiratory virus is positive?
Article in Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- UMPlex™: a targeted next-generation sequencing primer design workflow.Virology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend empiric antibiotic therapy for patients who require hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We sought to determine whether clinical, imaging or laboratory features in patients hospitalized for CAP in whom PCR is positive for a respiratory virus enable exclusion of bacterial coinfection so that antibiotics can be withheld.
methodsFor this prospective study, we selected patients in whom an etiologic diagnosis was likely to be reached, namely those who provided a high-quality sputum sample at or shortly after admission, and in whom PCR was done to test for a respiratory virus. We performed quantitative bacteriologic studies on sputum to determine the presence of bacterial infection or coinfection and reviewed all clinical, imaging and laboratory studies.
resultsOf 122 CAP patients studied, 77 (63.1%) had bacterial infection, 16 (13.1%) viral infection, and 29 (23.8%) bacterial/viral coinfection. Underlying pulmonary disease and a history of smoking were more common in bacterial pneumonia. Upper respiratory symptoms were more common, and mean white blood cell (WBC) counts were lower viral pneumonia. Nevertheless, no clinical, laboratory or imaging findings allowed exclusion of bacterial coinfection in patients who tested positive for a respiratory virus. In fact, patients with bacterial/viral coinfection were sicker than those with bacterial or viral pneumonia; 30% were admitted required transfer to the ICU during their hospital course, compared to 17% and 19% of patients with bacterial or viral infection, respectively (p < .05). In this study, 64.4% of patients who tested positive for a respiratory virus had a bacterial coinfection.
conclusionsIf a test for a respiratory virus test is positive in a patient hospitalized for CAP, no sufficiently differentiating features exclude bacterial coinfection, thereby supporting the recommendation that empiric antibiotics be administered to all patients who are sufficiently ill to require hospitalization for CAP.
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.