ArticlePulmonary medicine2026
Distinguishing Between Bacterial and Viral Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Hospitalized Adults: The Importance of Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Findings.
Article in Pulmonary medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur study aims to compare patients with identified viral and bacterial pathogens and develop a predictive model for determining community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) etiology.
methodsIn this retrospective case-control study, hospitalized adults with confirmed bacterial or viral CAP were compared at a 1:3 ratio. Patients were matched by gender, hospitalization department, age, and Charlson comorbidity index. The etiology of CAP was established through blood and sputum culture, polymerase chain reaction of respiratory specimens, and urinary antigen tests. Both objective variables and subjective symptoms were assessed using multivariate conditional logistic regression.
resultsOur study included 400 patients. Using the best-developed model, we found that patients with bacterial CAP were more likely to exhibit unilateral infiltration on visualization (odds ratio [OR] 20.47; 95% confidence intervals [CI; 7.51-55.81], p < 0.001), experience chills (OR 20.69; 95% CI [6.08-70.38], p < 0.001), have a higher heart rate (OR 1.04; 95% CI [1.01-1.06], p = 0.001), and demonstrate an elevated neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio (OR 1.58; 95% CI [1.16-2.14], p = 0.003). They also showed a decreased level of consciousness (OR 3.16; [1.16-8.61], p = 0.024), and were more likely to receive vasopressors within the first 24 h of admission (OR 8.28; 95% CI [1.75-39.22], p = 0.008). Conversely, they were less likely to have general weakness (OR 0.20; 95% CI [0.09-0.47], p < 0.001) and tended to have lower total serum protein levels (OR 0.06; 95% CI [0.01-0.45], p = 0.006). This model showed sensitivity of 90%, specificity of 91%, and positive predictive value of 97%.
conclusionThe developed model offers a valuable tool for assessing the etiology of CAP upon admission.
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.