ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Incremental contribution of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid data to multidisciplinary discussion of interstitial lung disease.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary discussion (MDD) integrating clinical, radiological, and laboratory information is considered the reference standard for the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) analysis is recommended in several diagnostic algorithms, but its incremental contribution during multidisciplinary evaluation remains incompletely characterized. In this study, we aimed to assess the impact of BALF findings on diagnostic consensus and confidence during MDD for suspected ILD.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, patients with suspected ILD at a tertiary referral center who remained without a definitive diagnosis after clinical evaluation and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) underwent bronchoscopy with BALF collection (n = 29). Blinded pulmonologists and radiologists evaluated each case using a sequential four-step framework: (1) radiological assessment; (2) radiological assessment with clinical data; (3) multidisciplinary discussion without BALF information; and (4) multidisciplinary discussion including BALF results. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Fleiss' kappa, and diagnostic confidence was recorded at each stage.
resultsDiagnostic agreement increased across the sequential evaluation steps (Fleiss' κ: 0.056, 0.565, 0.905, and 0.965, respectively; p < 0.001). Consensus diagnoses were achieved in 24 cases after MDD without BALF and in 27 cases following incorporation of BALF findings. The proportion of evaluations with high diagnostic confidence (≥ 90%) increased from 3.4% before BALF availability to 20.7% after its inclusion.
conclusionWithin a multidisciplinary diagnostic framework for ILD, BALF information were associated with improved diagnostic consensus and increased clinician confidence. BALF may therefore serve as a complementary diagnostic tool in the multidisciplinary assessment of ILD, particularly in cases that remained uncertain after clinical and radiological evaluation.
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.