Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does This Patient Have Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia?

Klompas, Michael·2007·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common and serious nosocomial infection. Accurate, timely diagnosis enables affected patients to receive appropriate therapy and avoids mistreatment of patients having other conditions. OBJECTIVE: To review the published medical literature describing the precision and accuracy of clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data to diagnose bacterial VAP relative to a histological gold standard. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles identified by a structured search strategy using MEDLINE (January 1966-October 31, 2006) and Google Scholar. Additional articles were identified through the reference lists of studies and review papers identified by the search strategy. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies described clinical findings associated with VAP in 25 or more patients receiving mechanical ventilation who subsequently underwent pulmonary biopsy or autopsy. Fourteen studies describing clinical findings in 655 patients met inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted onto a structured form, allowing calculation of the likelihood ratios (LRs) for each sign or combination of findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: The presence or absence of fever, abnormal white blood cell count, or purulent pulmonary secretions do not substantively alter the probability of VAP. However, the combination of a new radiographic infiltrate with at least 2 of fever, leukocytosis, or purulent sputum increases the likelihood of VAP (summary LR, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-7.9). The absence of a new infiltrate on a plain chest radiograph lowers the likelihood of VAP (summary LR, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.87). Fewer than 50% neutrophils on cell count analysis of lower pulmonary secretions makes VAP unlikely (LR range, 0.05-0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Routine bedside evaluation coupled with radiographic information provides suggestive but not definitive evidence that VAP is present or absent. Given the severity of VAP and the frequency of serious conditions that can mimic VAP, clinicians should be ready to consider additional tests that provide further evidence for VAP or that establish another diagnosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.297.14.1583

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Klompas, M.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2007-04-11
Volume
297
Issue
14
Pages
1583
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2131338438
Cited by
304
References
39
FWCI
16.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does This Patient Have Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.297.14.1583
The paper
Klompas, M. (2007). Does This Patient Have Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.14.1583

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.