Trial reportMedicine2025
Suction pressure levels during bronchial obstruction are related to bronchoalveolar lavage recovery failure: A clinical trial.
Trial report in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a valuable diagnostic tool, with an optimal recovery rate of ≥ 30% for effective diagnosis. The primary cause of BAL recovery failure is bronchial collapse due to negative pressure, which is potentially influenced by bronchial wall weakness. This study aimed to measure suction pressure levels during bronchial collapse to explore their relationship with BAL recovery rates.
methodsWe included 103 patients who underwent BAL procedures at Fukujuji Hospital from May 2024 to July 2025. Suction pressure levels during bronchial obstruction were evaluated and compared between patients with a BAL recovery rate < 30% (the failure group) and those with a BAL recovery rate ≥ 30% (the success group).
resultsOf the 103 patients, 13 were categorized into the failure group, and 90 into the success group. The median age of patients in the failure group was 74 years (range 47-86), with 7 males (53.8%), which was not significantly different from that of patients in the success group (median age 72 years [range 18-90], P = .290; male n = 56 [62.2%], P = .560). Patients in the failure group had significantly lower suction pressure levels during bronchial obstruction than those in the success group did (median 8 hPa [95% confidence interval: 3-13] vs 10 hPa [4-22], P < .001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for suction pressure levels during bronchial obstruction for predicting BAL recovery failure was 0.807 (95% confidence interval: 0.687-0.927). A cutoff value of <9.5 hPa was identified as a predictable suction pressure level causing bronchial obstruction, with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 92.3%.
conclusionSuction pressure levels during bronchial obstruction were predictive of BAL recovery rate failure, suggesting that a weak bronchial wall may be more prone to collapse under suction pressure.
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.