SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocyte patterns in hypersensitivity pneumonitis and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is an important adjunctive tool in the multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), particularly hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). However, considerable overlap in BAL cellular profiles and inconsistent lymphocyte thresholds limit its independent diagnostic value. This systematic review summarizes current evidence regarding the diagnostic and prognostic utility of BAL cellular analysis in differentiating HP from NSIP. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL identified studies evaluating BAL cellular, immunophenotypic, and biomarker findings in HP and NSIP. Study selection followed PRISMA recommendations. Owing to methodological heterogeneity, the evidence was synthesized narratively. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. BAL lymphocytosis consistently supported the diagnosis of HP, particularly at thresholds above 30%, although higher cut-offs improved specificity at the expense of sensitivity. Considerable overlap between HP and NSIP was observed, especially in fibrotic disease, limiting the diagnostic performance of isolated lymphocyte percentages. Emerging BAL biomarkers, including CD4/CD8 ratio, NK/NKT-cell subsets, IL-9 signaling, KL-6, and flow cytometric immunophenotyping, showed potential to improve differential diagnosis. In addition, higher BAL lymphocyte counts were associated with favorable treatment response and improved prognosis in selected HP and NSIP populations. Conclusion: BAL cellular analysis remains a valuable complementary diagnostic tool rather than a standalone test for distinguishing HP from NSIP. Accurate interpretation requires integration with exposure history, high-resolution computed tomography, histopathology when available, and multidisciplinary discussion. Standardized BAL protocols and prospective validation of advanced immunophenotypic biomarkers are needed to improve diagnostic precision and clinical decision-making in fibrotic ILDs. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261397405, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261397405).
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.