Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 487

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post-mortem lung biopsies

Open access
Fabregas, N., Ewig, S., Torres, A., El-Ebiary, M., Ramirez, J., de la Bellacasa, J. P., Bauer, T., Cabello, H.·1999·Thorax

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic value of different clinical criteria and the impact of microbiological testing on the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of suspected ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: Twenty five deceased mechanically ventilated patients were studied prospectively. Immediately after death, multiple bilateral lung biopsy specimens (16 specimens/patient) were obtained for histological examination and quantitative lung cultures. The presence of both histological pneumonia and positive lung cultures was used as a reference test. RESULTS: The presence of infiltrates on the chest radiograph and two of three clinical criteria (leucocytosis, purulent secretions, fever) had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 75%; the corresponding numbers for the clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) were 77% and 42%. Non-invasive as well as invasive sampling techniques had comparable values. The combination of all techniques achieved a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 50%, and these values remained virtually unchanged despite the presence of previous treatment with antibiotics. When microbiological results were added to clinical criteria, adequate diagnoses originating from microbiological results which might have corrected false positive and false negative clinical judgements (n = 5) were countered by a similar proportion of inadequate diagnoses (n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical criteria had reasonable diagnostic values. CPIS was not superior to conventional clinical criteria. Non-invasive and invasive sampling techniques had diagnostic values comparable to clinical criteria. An algorithm guiding antibiotic treatment exclusively by microbiological results does not increase the overall diagnostic accuracy and carries the risk of undertreatment.

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.54.10.867

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 487

Metadata

Authors
Fabregas, N., Ewig, S., Torres, A., El-Ebiary, M., Ramirez, J., de la Bellacasa, J. P., Bauer, T., & Cabello, H.
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-10-01
Volume
54
Issue
10
Pages
867-873
ISSN
0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159786990
Cited by
487
References
0
FWCI
9.23
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: Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post-mortem lung biopsies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thx.54.10.867
The paper
Fabregas, N., Ewig, S., Torres, A., El-Ebiary, M., Ramirez, J., de la Bellacasa, J. P., Bauer, T., & Cabello, H. (1999). Clinical diagnosis of ventilator associated pneumonia revisited: comparative validation using immediate post-mortem lung biopsies. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.54.10.867

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.