Trial reportAPMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica2025
Microbiological Analysis of Lower Airway Samples: Does It Influence the Outcome in Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia?
Trial report in APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective randomized trial examined the impact of extensive lower respiratory tract sampling and microbial analysis on treatment decisions and patient outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). One hundred and eighteen patients were randomized to rigorous sampling (intervention group, n = 64) or standard care (control group, n = 54). The primary outcome was antibiotic therapy change based on microbiological results. Secondary outcomes included intravenous therapy duration, hospital stay length, 30-day mortality, and readmission rate. Unexpectedly, many control group patients underwent sampling at the physician's discretion, making the groups equivalent in sampling frequency. Microbiological analysis led to antibiotic therapy changes in 28% of intervention and 30% of control patients. Overall, 34% of sampled patients had treatment adjustments, generally leading to antibiotic broadening. No significant differences were observed between groups in secondary outcomes. While rigorous sampling did not significantly impact overall patient outcomes, microbiological analysis influenced treatment decisions in a substantial proportion of patients. Future studies should evaluate the effects of sampling for CAP diagnosis in settings where broader-spectrum antibiotics are the empirical treatment of choice to determine the impact on treatment decisions.
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.