ArticleERJ open research2026
A novel method to assess airway eosinophilia using sputum plugs.
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is it time for a simplified method to evaluate airway eosinophilia?ERJ open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sputum cytology utilising routine dithiothreitol (DTT) processing is a well-established method to assess airway eosinophilia. However, the multi-step nature of this protocol requires substantial resources, thereby limiting its broader clinical applicability. To address this, we evaluated formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sputum plugs as a simplified method for measuring airway eosinophilia. Methods: Excess sputum plugs from 113 patients with complex airway disease and 16 asthma patients on corticosteroid or monoclonal antibodies were fixed in 10% formalin and embedded in paraffin (Sputum-Minimising Processing, Maximising Clinical Outcomes (SSIMPLE) method). FFPE blocks were sectioned, stained with haematoxylin and eosin, and assessed by four blinded observers, who performed a differential cell count on 400 total nonsquamous cells. Eosinophil proportions were then compared between matched FFPE and DTT-processed sputum slides. Airway eosinophilia was defined as ≥2.2% sputum eosinophils in DTT-processed samples. Results: Of the 113 FFPE slides, 96% were adequate for cellular analysis, with 90% having matched DTT-processed sputum slides. The SSIMPLE method demonstrated excellent interobserver reproducibility (consistency: 0.975; agreement: 0.976). Eosinophil proportions obtained from SSIMPLE and DTT processing were significantly correlated (ρ=0.9, p<0.0001) and showed agreement (Bland-Altman, -0.38±9.51). A cut-off of 2.6% detected airway eosinophilia with high sensitivity (85.4%) and specificity (93.0%) using the SSIMPLE method, showing strong agreement with the routine DTT method, as indicated by an area under the curve of 0.957. Additionally, the method effectively assessed treatment responsiveness to monoclonal antibody therapy. Conclusion: The SSIMPLE method is a reliable, noninferior approach to DTT processing for detecting airway eosinophilia in complex airway diseases, with high reproducibility and strong concordance in monitoring treatment responsiveness.
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.