Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41020207›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Swedish study participants undergoing research bronchoscopy - a tolerable or unpleasant experience?

Pernilla Sönnerfors, Petra Kristina Jacobson, Anders Andersson, Leif Hilding Bjermer, Anders Blomberg, Heléne Blomqvist, Christer Janson, Jonas S Erjefält, Hans Lennart Persson, Ellen Tufvesson and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Pernilla SönnerforsDepartment of Medicine Solna, Division of Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Petra Kristina JacobsonDepartment of Respiratory Medicine in Linköping, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Anders AnderssonCOPD Center, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Leif Hilding BjermerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine, Allergy and Palliative Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anders BlombergDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Heléne BlomqvistDepartment of Medicine Solna, Division of Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Christer JansonDepartment of Medical Sciences, Respiratory, Allergy and Sleep Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jonas S ErjefältUnit of Airway Inflammation, Department of Experimental Medicine Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Hans Lennart PerssonDepartment of Respiratory Medicine in Linköping, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Ellen TufvessonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine, Allergy and Palliative Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Åsa M WheelockDepartment of Medicine Solna, Division of Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Carl Magnus SköldDepartment of Medicine Solna, Division of Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Annelie BehndigDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Flexible bronchoscopy is regarded as a safe examination and is commonly used in the diagnostic work-up for lung diseases, but is also important in pulmonary research. We aimed to investigate participants' experiences when undergoing bronchoscopy in a research setting. Methods: Participants were recruited from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS). A subset from this cohort ( Results: In general, participants found the bronchoscopy procedure acceptable and only a few (18%) found it unpleasant. A majority (80%) reported their experience to be much better or as expected. Almost all participants (93%) were very satisfied with the information provided. Topical anesthesia was seen as more unpleasant (20%) than airway sampling (11%). Notably, more women and participants with normal lung function reported BAL as unpleasant. After the procedure, chills, fever, and hemoptysis were reported, but no serious adverse events occurred. Increased cough and phlegm were noted. Conclusion: The present study, conducted by experienced bronchoscopists and healthcare teams, demonstrates that a bronchoscopy in a research setting in well-informed participants with normal lung function or COPD was well-tolerated.

Indexed as

airway samplingparticipants’ experiencespatient informationresearch bronchoscopyresearch setting

Identifiers

PMID41020207
PMCPMC12465911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.