The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of bronchoscopic techniques for the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia.
Abstract
To compare the usefulness of specimens obtained by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and using a protected specimen brush (PSB) in the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia, both procedures were performed via fiberoptic bronchoscopy just after death in a series of 20 ventilated patients who had not developed pneumonia before the terminal phase of their disease and who had no recent changes in antimicrobial therapy. These results were compared with both histologic and microbiologic postmortem lung features in the same area. The total number of bacteria obtained by culture of lung segments and the latters' histologic grade were closely correlated (rho = 0.79, p < 0.0001). PSB and BAL quantitative culture results were strongly correlated with lung tissue values (rho = 0.67 and 0.75, respectively; p < 0.0001). Using discriminative values of > or = 10(3) and > or = 10(4) bacteria/ml to define positive PSB and BAL cultures, respectively, these techniques identified lung segments yielding > or = 10(4) bacteria/g tissue with sensitivities of 82 and 91% and specificities of 89 and 78%, respectively. Moreover, upon direct observation, the percentage of BAL cells containing intracellular bacteria was closely correlated with the total number of bacteria obtained from corresponding lung samples (p < 0.001). These findings indicate that bronchoscopic PSB and BAL samples very reliably identify both qualitatively and quantitatively microorganisms present in lung segments with bacterial pneumonia, even when the infection develops as a superinfection in a patient already receiving antimicrobial treatment for several days.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Chastre, J., Wolff, M., Fagon, J.-Y., Chevret, S., Thomas, F., Wermert, D., Clementi, E., Gonzalez, J., Jusserand, D., Asfar, P., et al. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.19.2588 · Cited by 1,376
Self-citationFagon, J.-Y., Chastre, J., Wolff, M., Gervais, C., Parer-Aubas, S., Stéphan, F., Similowski, T., Mercat, A., Diehl, J.-L., Sollet, J.-P., et al. (2000) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-8-200004180-00004 · Cited by 854
Self-citationLuna, C. M., Blanzaco, D., Niederman, M. S., Matarucco, W., Baredes, N. C., Desmery, P., Palizas, F., Menga, G., Rios, F., & Apezteguia, C. (2003) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000055380.86458.1e · Cited by 477
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
(2012) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_225126 · Cited by 406
EL-EBIARY, M., TORRES, A., FÁBREGAS, N., de la BELLACASA, J. P., GONZÁLEZ, J., RAMIREZ, J., del BAÑO, D., HERNÁNDEZ, C., & JIMÉNEZ de ANTA, M. T. (1997) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.156.2.9612023 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Chastre, J., Fagon, J. Y., Bornet-Lecso, M., Calvat, S., Dombret, M. C., al Khani, R., Basset, F., & Gibert, C.
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 152
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 231-240
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W1994512363
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.53
- 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: Evaluation of bronchoscopic techniques for the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.152.1.7599829
- The paper
- Chastre, J., Fagon, J. Y., Bornet-Lecso, M., Calvat, S., Dombret, M. C., al Khani, R., Basset, F., & Gibert, C. (1995). Evaluation of bronchoscopic techniques for the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.152.1.7599829
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.