ArticleIJID regions2025
Comparing mini bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal aspirate in diagnosing bacterial pneumonia in the intensive care unit.
Article in IJID regions, 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.
- Comparison of Cultures and 16S/18S Amplicon-Based Microbiome Analyses for Diagnosing Nosocomial Pneumonia in Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit-An Exploratory Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Therapeutic Vaccination in Lung Cancer: Past Attempts, Current Approaches and Future Promises.Journal of respiratory biology and translational medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Pneumonia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Timely and accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective treatment, but lower respiratory tract sampling techniques vary in sensitivity and specificity. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of endotracheal aspirate (ETA) with mini bronchoalveolar lavage (mBAL) in detecting bacterial pneumonia in intubated patients, assessing sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ETA against mBAL, the gold standard. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted at the ICU of Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), Karachi, Pakistan, over 7 months. Adult patients on mechanical ventilation with suspected or confirmed pneumonia were included. Both mBAL and ETA samples were collected under strict aseptic conditions. Results: Out of 120 patients, 112 paired samples were analyzed. ETA exhibited a sensitivity of 81.1%, specificity of 92.1%, PPV of 95.2%, and NPV of 71.4%, with an overall accuracy of 84.8%. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Conclusion: ETA is a cost-effective and reliable alternative to mBAL for diagnosing bacterial pneumonia in intubated ICU patients, but clinicians should carefully interpret negative results.
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.