ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Induced sputum versus bronchoalveolar lavage in lower respiratory tract infection: an exploratory paired diagnostic study.
Article in Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) is widely used for etiologic assessment of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), but its invasiveness limits routine use. This study evaluated induced sputum (IS) as a less-invasive specimen for targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS). Methods: In this prospective exploratory study, paired IS and BALF samples from 30 adults with suspected LRTI underwent tNGS. The primary etiology was determined by composite clinical adjudication. Detected microorganisms were classified as definitive pathogens, conditional pathogens, or colonizers/commensals. Results: Clinical-match positivity was 70.0% (21/30) for IS and 86.7% (26/30) for BALF, while combining both specimens increased coverage to 93.3% (28/30). Definitive pathogen detection was broadly similar between specimens, whereas colonizers/commensals were more frequently detected in IS (45.6% vs 28.2%). After excluding six Discussion: Differences between IS and BALF tNGS were mainly attributable to upper-airway background signals. IS may serve as a less-invasive initial option in selected non-complex LRTIs, though further prospective validation in larger cohorts is needed.
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.