ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Diagnostic yield of induced sputum and Bronchoalveolar lavage in suspected pulmonary tuberculosis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation of a Tandem qPCR-CRISPR Assay for Multidrug-Resistant or Rifampicin-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing for microbial and clinical diagnosis: a prospective controlled comparison between sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A High Sensitive Detection of Droplet Digital PCR for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Clinical validation and utility of targeted nanopore sequencing for rapid pathogen diagnosis and precision therapy in lung cancer patients with pulmonary infections.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of induced sputum (IS) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and negative sputum smears. We enrolled 215 patients who underwent both IS and BAL after two negative spontaneous sputum samples. PTB was confirmed by culture or molecular test in 26 patients (12.1%). IS detected 10 cases (38.5%) of all PTB, while BAL detected 22 cases (84.6%) of all PTB. IS had a sensitivity of 38.46% and a specificity of 100%, while BAL had a sensitivity of 84.62% and a specificity of 100%. BAL had a higher diagnostic yield than IS and was useful for ruling out alternative diagnoses. According to our experience FBS execution is mandatory in case of strong TB suspicion and sputum smear negative patients, especially in a low TB prevalence country. Moreover, it consents testing microorganism sensitivity and assessing possible alternative diagnosis with similar clinical presentation. The choice of the best diagnostic method may depend on the clinical context and the availability of resources.
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.