Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41130610›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open respiratory research2025

No difference in microbial diversity between bronchoalveolar lavage and tracheal sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dilan Mark Karim, Márton Papp, Péter Fehérvári, Caner Turan, Péter Hegyi, Zsolt Molnar, Krisztina Madách

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Dilan Mark KarimCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary dilan.karim@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8463-8456
Márton PappCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0765-794X
Péter FehérváriCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4377-018X
Caner TuranCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8200-7569
Péter HegyiCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsolt MolnarCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1468-4058
Krisztina MadáchCenter for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0048-5522

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe respiratory microbiome has a vital role in maintaining respiratory health and preventing pathogen colonisation, but traditional diagnostic methods fail to capture a complete picture of it. Metagenomic sequencing has improved our understanding of microbial ecosystems in both acute and chronic pathologies. However, its results have not been systematically compared between different respiratory sampling techniques, as has been done with traditional methods. Our study aims to compare the microbial diversity in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and tracheal samples using microbiome sequencing.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases to identify studies where lower respiratory tract microbiome specimens were collected simultaneously using BAL and tracheal sampling and diversity was analysed postsequencing. Risk of bias was assessed with our specifically tailored tool. A random-effects model was used for data synthesis, analysing pooled Shannon, Chao1 and Simpson indices.

resultsWe screened 1050 potentially relevant publications, 10 of which were included. No significant difference was found in microbial alpha diversity between BAL and tracheal samples. The subgroup analysis of tracheal sample types, including sputum and endotracheal aspirate, revealed no significant differences compared with BAL.

conclusionsTracheal sampling methods offer a viable and less invasive alternative to BAL for characterising microbiome alpha diversity in clinical or research settings where segmental sampling is not required. However, further high-quality comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023436934.

Indexed as

Bronchoalveolar LavageBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidMicrobiotaSpecimen HandlingTracheaHumansBacterial InfectionBronchoscopyCritical CareEquipment EvaluationsRespiratory Infection

Identifiers

PMID41130610
PMCPMC12551526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.