The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnostic Value of Quantitative Cultures of Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Telescoping Plugged Catheters in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Bacterial Pneumonia
Abstract
We compared the diagnostic value of quantitative cultures of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and telescoping plugged catheter (TPC) samples in 34 nonimmunocompromised, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with suspected bacterial pneumonia. A control group of seven "noninfected" MV patients was also studied. In 92% of patients with bacterial pneumonia (32 of 34), simple endotracheal aspiration samples recovered one or more microorganisms. Both BAL and TPC samples cultured colony-forming units (cfu) greater than or equal to 10(3)/ml of one or more microorganisms in 56% (19 of 34) of patients. TPC and BAL culture results agreed on 88.5% (54 of 61) of the recovered microorganisms. Sterile TPC and BAL cultures agreed on 80% (4 of 5) of the cases. Microorganisms cultured from blood samples were also cultured from BAL and TPC specimens. Culture results from the two techniques completely disagreed in only one case (3%). In the control group, one TPC and two BAL cultures yielded microorganisms in cfu greater than or equal to 10(3)/ml. Specificities of BAL and TPC were 71 and 86%, respectively, whereas specificity of endotracheal aspiration was only 14%. Both the bacterial index obtained by TPC and BAL, as well as the quantitative cultures, correlated moderately well (r = 0.78 and 0.72, respectively, p less than 0.001 for both correlations). BAL and TPC results caused changes of antibiotic treatment in 11 of 23 survivors. Neither BAL nor TPC caused complications. Our results demonstrate that BAL and TPC diagnose bacterial pneumonia in MV patients with similar accuracy. Culture results from both techniques showed excellent qualitative and reasonable quantitative agreement.
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
Impact of BAL Data on the Therapy and Outcome of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Luna, C. M., Vujacich, P., Niederman, M. S., Vay, C., Gherardi, C., Matera, J., & Jolly, E. C. (1997) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.111.3.676 · Cited by 916
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
- Torres, A., De La Bellacasa, J. P., Xaubet, A., Gonzalez, J., Rodríguez-Roisin, R., De Anta, M. T. J., & Vidal, A. A.
- Venue
- American Review of Respiratory Disease
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-08
- Volume
- 140
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 306-310
- ISSN
- 0003-0805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1978767704
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.19
- 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: Diagnostic Value of Quantitative Cultures of Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Telescoping Plugged Catheters in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Bacterial Pneumonia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm/140.2.306
- The paper
- Torres, A., De La Bellacasa, J. P., Xaubet, A., Gonzalez, J., Rodríguez-Roisin, R., De Anta, M. T. J., & Vidal, A. A. (1989). Diagnostic Value of Quantitative Cultures of Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Telescoping Plugged Catheters in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Bacterial Pneumonia. American Review of Respiratory Disease. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/140.2.306
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.