Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Blood culture bottle culture of pleural fluid in pleural infection

Open access
Menzies, S. M., Rahman, N. M., Wrightson, J. M., Davies, H. E., Shorten, R., Gillespie, S. H., Davies, C. W. H., Maskell, N. A., Jeffrey, A. A., Lee, Y. C. G., Davies, R. J. O.·2011·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pleural infection is common, and has a >30% major morbidity and mortality-particularly when infection is caused by Gram-negative, Staphylococcus aureus or mixed aerobic pathogens. Standard pleural fluid culture is negative in ∼40% of cases. Culturing pleural fluid in blood culture bottles may increase microbial yield, and is cheap and easy to perform. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether inoculating pleural fluid into blood culture bottles increases the culture positivity of pleural infection over standard laboratory culture, and to assess the optimum volume of inoculum to introduce. METHODS: 62 patients with pleural infection were enrolled. Pairs of aerobic and anaerobic blood culture bottles were inoculated at the bedside with 2, 5 or 10 ml of pleural fluid, and two pleural fluid specimens were sent for standard culture. Pleural fluid from nine control patients was cultured to test for 'false-positive' results. RESULTS: The addition of blood culture bottle culture to standard culture increased the proportion of patients with identifiable pathogens by 20.8% (20/53 (37.7%) to 31/53 (58.5%) (difference 20.8%, 95% CI difference 8.9% to 20.8%, p<0.001)). The second standard culture did not similarly improve the culture positivity (19/49 (38.8%) to 22/49 (44.9%) (difference 6.1%, 95% CI difference -2.5% to 6.1%, p=0.08)). The culture inoculum volume did not influence bacterial isolation frequency. The control fluids were culture negative. CONCLUSIONS: Blood culture bottle culture of infected pleural fluid increases microbial yield when used in addition to standard culture. This technique should be part of routine care.

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 · 10.1136/thx.2010.157842

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 184

Metadata

Authors
Menzies, S. M., Rahman, N. M., Wrightson, J. M., Davies, H. E., Shorten, R., Gillespie, S. H., Davies, C. W. H., Maskell, N. A., Jeffrey, A. A., Lee, Y. C. G., & Davies, R. J. O.
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
66
Issue
8
Pages
658-662
ISSN
0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136767668
Cited by
184
References
0
FWCI
8.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Blood culture bottle culture of pleural fluid in pleural infection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thx.2010.157842
The paper
Menzies, S. M., Rahman, N. M., Wrightson, J. M., Davies, H. E., Shorten, R., Gillespie, S. H., Davies, C. W. H., Maskell, N. A., Jeffrey, A. A., Lee, Y. C. G., & Davies, R. J. O. (2011). Blood culture bottle culture of pleural fluid in pleural infection. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.157842

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.