Observational studyAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2026
Comparing clinical assessments of pneumonia to bronchoalveolar lavage results in critically ill patients with suspected pneumonia.
Observational study in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleWhile clinical criteria are used to diagnose pneumonia in critically ill patients, rates of concordance between a clinician's suspicion for pneumonia and a diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) results are undefined.
objectivesTo assess rates of concordance between clinically suspected pneumonia and pneumonia diagnosed by BAL and clinical adjudication in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing BAL for suspected pneumonia, and to identify clinical factors and outcomes associated with diagnostic discordance.
methodsThis was a single-center prospective observational study of intubated, mechanically ventilated patients undergoing BAL for suspected pneumonia. From 2018 to 2022, clinicians were asked to quantify their suspicion for pneumonia on the same day they performed a BAL for the patient with one of the following options: <15%, 30%, 50%, 70%, or >85%. Responses were categorized as low (<15% to 30%), intermediate (50%), or high (70% to >85%) suspicion for pneumonia and compared to diagnoses of pneumonia based on independent adjudication of clinical data plus BAL results.
resultsAmong 659 patients, 84% (553/659) were adjudicated to have pneumonia based on chart review and BAL results. Clinicians assigned a low suspicion for pneumonia to 20% (109/553) of patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of pneumonia. Clinicians assigned a high suspicion for pneumonia in 28% (30/106) of patients without pneumonia based on adjudication. Among patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of pneumonia, there were no significant differences in vital signs or laboratory values between those assigned a low suspicion for pneumonia and those assigned a high suspicion for pneumonia. In patients adjudicated to have culture-negative pneumonia (n = 117), those assigned a low suspicion for pneumonia, compared to those assigned a high suspicion for pneumonia, had a longer length of stay in the hospital (36 days vs 18 days, P = .02) and intensive care unit (ICU) (21 days vs 9 days, P = .01).
conclusionsOverdiagnosis, rather than a missed diagnosis, is the more frequent cause of diagnostic discordance. A low suspicion for pneumonia in patients with an adjudicated diagnosis of culture-negative pneumonia is associated with longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay. There is a need to improve diagnostic accuracy in critically ill patients with suspected pneumonia.
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.