Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bronchoscopic or blind sampling techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Papazian, L, Thomas, P, Garbe, L, Guignon, I, Thirion, X, Charrel, J, Bollet, C, Fuentes, P, Gouin, F·1995·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective postmortem study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of bronchoscopic techniques (bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL] and protected specimen brush [PSB]) and nonbronchoscopic techniques (blind bronchial sampling [BBS] and mini-BAL) in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The results of each technique were compared with histology and culture of lung tissue specimens obtained by surgical pneumonectomies in 38 patients who died after at least 72 h of mechanical ventilation. Histology was positive for VAP in 18 patients and negative in 20 patients. There were 12 definite VAP (positive histology and positive lung cultures) and 6 histologic VAP (positive histology and negative cultures). Clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) at a threshold of 6 achieved a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 85%. When the CPIS was combined with the logarithmic concentration of the predominant microorganism obtained from the BBS sample culture, specificity was increased to 95%, for a threshold of 10. Using 10(3) cfu/ml as the threshold of positivity for cultures obtained with PSB and mini-BAL samples and 10(4) cfu/ml for cultures obtained with BBS and BAL, the respective sensitivities of these techniques for definite VAP were 42, 67, 83, and 58%. The sensitivity of BBS was significantly higher than that of PSB (p < 0.05). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was significantly greater for BBS than PSB (p < 0.05). Given that it is more sensitive and noninvasive, BBS is preferable to PSB for the diagnosis of VAP.

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.152.6.8520766

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 327

Metadata

Authors
Papazian, L., Thomas, P., Garbe, L., Guignon, I., Thirion, X., Charrel, J., Bollet, C., Fuentes, P., & Gouin, F.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
1995-12
Volume
152
Issue
6
Pages
1982-1991
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2143041376
Cited by
327
References
1
FWCI
12.94
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: Bronchoscopic or blind sampling techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.152.6.8520766
The paper
Papazian, L., Thomas, P., Garbe, L., Guignon, I., Thirion, X., Charrel, J., Bollet, C., Fuentes, P., & Gouin, F. (1995). Bronchoscopic or blind sampling techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.152.6.8520766

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.