Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Detection of Nosocomial Lung Infection in Ventilated Patients: Use of a Protected Specimen Brush and Quantitative Culture Techniques in 147 Patients

Fagon, Jean-Yves, Chastre, Jean, Hance, Allan J., Guiguet, Marguerite, Trouillet, Jean-Louis, Domart, Yves, Pierre, Josiane, Gibert, Claude·1988·American Review of Respiratory Disease

Abstract

Abstract To determine the usefulness of samples obtained by bronchoscopy using a protected specimen brush and evaluated by quantitative culture techniques in establishing the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, we prospectively studied 147 ventilated patients suspected of having nosocomial pneumonia because of the presence of a new pulmonary infiltrate and purulent tracheal secretions. Positive cultures of protected brush specimens (> 103 cfu/ml) were found in only 45 patients (31%). Subsequent follow-up confirmed the diagnosis of pneumonia in 34 of 45 patients, and in only 4 of 45 patients was a positive culture firmly established to be a false positive result. No patient with < 103 cfu/ml was subsequently shown to have had pneumonia, and the diagnosis was definitely excluded in 72 of 102 patients by the absence of pneumonia at autopsy or recovery without antibiotic therapy. In contrast, when 16 clinical variables were evaluated by stepwise logistic regression analysis, no combination could be identified that was useful in distinguishing patients with bacterial pneumonia. Furthermore, when the actual costs of evaluation and therapy of our patients were compared with the projected costs entailed in treating all patients suspected of having pneumonia with antibiotics, evaluation using the protected specimen brush and quantitative cultures was less expensive after only 6 days of treatment. These results suggest that the appearance of pulmonary infiltrates and purulent tracheal secretions does not result from bacterial pneumonia in a majority of patients. Patients requiring antimicrobial therapy can be accurately identified using samples obtained with a protected specimen brush and evaluated with quantitative culture techniques, but cannot be distinguished on clinical grounds alone. Evaluation of patients suspected of having nosocomial pneumonia by this procedure avoids the unnecessary use of antibiotics in such patients, thereby reducing toxicity associated with antibiotic use and the overall cost of patient management.

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/138.1.110

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 426

Metadata

Authors
Fagon, J.-Y., Chastre, J., Hance, A. J., Guiguet, M., Trouillet, J.-L., Domart, Y., Pierre, J., & Gibert, C.
Venue
American Review of Respiratory Disease
Published
1988-07
Volume
138
Issue
1
Pages
110-116
ISSN
0003-0805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980342209
Cited by
426
References
0
FWCI
16.28
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: Detection of Nosocomial Lung Infection in Ventilated Patients: Use of a Protected Specimen Brush and Quantitative Culture Techniques in 147 Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm/138.1.110
The paper
Fagon, J.-Y., Chastre, J., Hance, A. J., Guiguet, M., Trouillet, J.-L., Domart, Y., Pierre, J., & Gibert, C. (1988). Detection of Nosocomial Lung Infection in Ventilated Patients: Use of a Protected Specimen Brush and Quantitative Culture Techniques in 147 Patients. American Review of Respiratory Disease. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/138.1.110

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.