ArticlePloS one2026
Clinical usefulness of repeated sputum culture for the identification of pneumonia pathogens: A retrospective study.
Article in PloS one, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sputum culture is essential for identifying pneumonia pathogens, but its sensitivity remains limited. This study evaluated the clinical utility of repeated sputum cultures and factors associated with detecting additional significant isolates in subsequent cultures. We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with pneumonia who underwent three serial sputum cultures at a tertiary hospital between January 2021 and December 2022. We excluded patients with over 48 h interval between each sputum sample or those with coronavirus disease 2019. Initial and subsequent culture results were compared, and clinical factors associated with detecting additional significant isolates were evaluated. A total of 132 patients were included. Sputum quality (p = 0.71) and culture positivity rates (p = 0.25) were similar across serial cultures. Fungi, particularly Candida species, were more frequently isolated from subsequent cultures (p = 0.02). The cumulative detection rate of significant isolates did not improve, although the cumulative number was higher in third than initial cultures (p = 0.01). Hypertension, inappropriate empirical antibiotics, shorter intervals to repeat culture, and greater pneumonia severity were independent risk factors for detecting additional significant isolates. Serial sputum cultures provided limited additional diagnostic information and were not associated with meaningful improvement in the sputum quality, culture positivity, or cumulative detection of significant isolates.
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.