ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Sputum and Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL) Cultures in Clinically Suspected Cases of Community-Acquired Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dangerous liaisons: the peri-transplant respiratory microbiota and their impact on lung transplantation outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare diagnostic agreement between culture results from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and sputum samples for common pneumonia-causing pathogens and to evaluate the value of less invasive alternative diagnostic methods for pneumonia. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in North India from January 2022 to December 2022. Samples were inoculated directly onto blood agar, chocolate agar, and MacConkey agar. Confirmation of isolates and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using an automated system (VITEK 2, bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France). A total of 253 paired BAL and sputum samples collected in close succession were analyzed for concordance. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 28 (IBM Corp. Released 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the level of agreement between the two methods.
resultsAmong 253 patients, 171 (67.6%) were male, with a mean age of 56.7 ± 2.1 years. Significant bacterial growth was observed in 43 (16.9%) sputum and 55 (21.7%) BAL specimens.
conclusionsSputum culture serves as a reliable first-line diagnostic tool with high specificity, whereas BAL demonstrates superior sensitivity and pathogen yield. BAL should be considered in cases with negative or inconclusive sputum results to enhance diagnostic accuracy in lower respiratory tract infections.
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.