The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnosis of Nosocomial Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: Comparison of a Plugged Telescoping Catheter with the Protected Specimen Brush
Abstract
Protected samples of lower respiratory tract secretions processed by quantitative culture techniques are recommended to diagnose nosocomial bacterial pneumonia in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients. To evaluate the accuracy of a simple and inexpensive sampling device in this setting, we compared quantitative cultures of paired single-sheathed plugged telescoping catheter (PTC) and protected specimen brush (PSB) samples in 55 patients during 78 suspected episodes of nosocomial pneumonia. PTC and PSB samples were taken in randomized order, and patients were also randomized to have PTC samples taken "blindly" or via a fiberoptic bronchoscope. Fifteen PSB and 27 PTC samples were culture positive (greater than or equal to 10(3) cfu/ml). The two sampling procedures gave similar results in 58 (74%) episodes. A major discrepancy occurred in 20 episodes, including six false negatives of PSB in episodes of proved pneumonia, four possible false positives of PSB, and 10 possible false positives of PTC (three of which rapidly evolved towards overt pneumonia). The sensitivity and specificity of PTC were 100 and 82.2%, and those of PSB were 64.7 and 93.5%, respectively. Blinded or directed PTC samples had similar concordance with PSB samples taken via bronchoscopy. We conclude that PTC is at least as accurate as PSB in the bacteriologic diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia in intubated patients, and that its use can result in substantial cost savings, especially when fiberoptic bronchoscopy is not otherwise indicated.
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
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
(2012) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_225126 · Cited by 406
Marquette, C. H., Copin, M. C., Wallet, F., Neviere, R., Saulnier, F., Mathieu, D., Durocher, A., Ramon, P., & Tonnel, A. B. (1995) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.151.6.7767535 · Cited by 334
Godeau, B., Schaeffer, A., Bachir, D., Fleury-Feith, J., Galacteros, F., Verra, F., Escudier, E., Vaillant, J. N., Brun-Buisson, C., Rahmouni, A., et al. (1996) · American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.153.5.8630622 · Cited by 116
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pham, L. H., Brun-Buisson, C., Legrand, P., Rauss, A., Verra, F., Brochard, L., & Lemaire, F.
- Venue
- American Review of Respiratory Disease
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-05
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 5_pt_1
- Pages
- 1055-1061
- ISSN
- 0003-0805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983048999
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.64
- 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: Diagnosis of Nosocomial Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: Comparison of a Plugged Telescoping Catheter with the Protected Specimen Brush. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm/143.5_pt_1.1055
- The paper
- Pham, L. H., Brun-Buisson, C., Legrand, P., Rauss, A., Verra, F., Brochard, L., & Lemaire, F. (1991). Diagnosis of Nosocomial Pneumonia in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: Comparison of a Plugged Telescoping Catheter with the Protected Specimen Brush. American Review of Respiratory Disease. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/143.5_pt_1.1055
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.