Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Validation of different techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Comparison with immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsy.

Torres, A, el-Ebiary, M, Padró, L, Gonzalez, J, de la Bellacasa, J P, Ramirez, J, Xaubet, A, Ferrer, M, Rodriguez-Roisin, R·1994·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

To assess the accuracy of clinical parameters for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated (VA) pneumonia, as well as the diagnostic value of several invasive techniques, such as protected specimen brush (PSB), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), fiberoptic bronchial aspirates (FBAS), and percutaneous lung needle aspiration (PLNA), we compared the results of these techniques with the histopathology of immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsies, considered the "gold standard" reference test. We studied 30 mechanically ventilated patients (age 52 +/- 21 yr; mechanical ventilation period 9 +/- 7 days) who died in an intensive care unit. All patients received prior antibiotic treatment. The following procedures were performed immediately after death: bilateral PSB, BAL, FBAS, and PLNA, as well as bilateral minithoracotomies to obtain pulmonary biopsies as close as possible to the area sampled with the other techniques. According to the histopathology 18 patients had pneumonia and 12 did not. The presence of fever (sensitivity 55%, specificity 58%), purulent secretions (sensitivity 83%, specificity 33%), and chest radiograph infiltrates (sensitivity 78%, specificity 42%) could not differentiate in all instances presence from absence of pneumonia. Quantitative bacterial cultures of lung biopsies using 10(3) cfu/g as a cutoff point had low sensitivity (40%) and low specificity (45%) and could not differentiate the histologic absence or presence of pneumonia. Considering the histopathology of pulmonary biopsies as a gold standard, we found the following sensitivities for PSB, BAL, FBAS, and PLNA: 36, 50, 44, and 25%. The specificities were 50, 45, 48, and 79%, respectively. The sensitivities and specificities of different invasive techniques are much lower than those reported in clinical studies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

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 · 10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306025

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 303

Metadata

Authors
Torres, A., el-Ebiary, M., Padró, L., Gonzalez, J., de la Bellacasa, J. P., Ramirez, J., Xaubet, A., Ferrer, M., & Rodriguez-Roisin, R.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
1994-02
Volume
149
Issue
2
Pages
324-331
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2029267149
Cited by
303
References
0
FWCI
18.05
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: Validation of different techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Comparison with immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306025
The paper
Torres, A., el-Ebiary, M., Padró, L., Gonzalez, J., de la Bellacasa, J. P., Ramirez, J., Xaubet, A., Ferrer, M., & Rodriguez-Roisin, R. (1994). Validation of different techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Comparison with immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsy. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306025

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.