The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnosing Pneumonia during Mechanical Ventilation: The Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score Revisited
Abstract
The clinical pulmonary infection score-original or modified-has been proposed for the diagnosis and management of ventilator-associated pneumonia. In 79 episodes of suspected pneumonia, we prospectively assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the physicians' clinical assessment of probability and of the modified clinical pulmonary infection score, both measured before (pretest) and after (post-test) incorporating gram stains results, using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture as the reference test. The pretest clinical estimate was inaccurate (sensitivity 50%, specificity 58%); the mean clinical pulmonary infection score at baseline was 6.5 +/- 1.3 (range, 3-9) and 5.9 +/- 1.7 (range, 3-9), respectively, for the 40 confirmed and the 39 nonconfirmed episodes (p = 0.07), and only slightly more accurate (sensitivity 60%, specificity 59%) than the clinical prediction. Incorporating the gram stain results of either directed or blind protected sampling increased the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 49% and 78% and 56%, respectively) of the clinical score and increased the likelihood ratio for pneumonia of a score of more than six from 1.46 to 1.67 and 1.77. The clinical pulmonary infection score has low diagnostic accuracy; however, incorporating gram stains results into the score may help clinical decision making in patients with clinically suspected pneumonia.
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
Cites
Le Gall, J.-R. (1993) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.270.24.2957 · Cited by 7,773
Cited by
Kalil, A. C., Metersky, M. L., Klompas, M., Muscedere, J., Sweeney, D. A., Palmer, L. B., Napolitano, L. M., O'Grady, N. P., Bartlett, J. G., Carratalà, J., et al. (2016) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw353 · Cited by 3,892
Determann, R. M., Royakkers, A., Wolthuis, E. K., Vlaar, A. P., Choi, G., Paulus, F., Hofstra, J.-J., de Graaff, M. J., Korevaar, J. C., & Schultz, M. J. (2010) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc8230 · Cited by 498
May, A. K., Brady, J. S., Romano-Keeler, J., Drake, W. P., Norris, P. R., Jenkins, J. M., Isaacs, R. J., & Boczko, E. M. (2015) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.14-1687 · Cited by 40
Rapid and Point-of-Care Testing in Respiratory Tract Infections: An Antibiotic Guardian?
Dhesi, Z., Enne, V. I., O‘Grady, J., Gant, V., & Livermore, D. M. (2020) · ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science · doi:10.1021/acsptsci.0c00027 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Fartoukh, M., Maître, B., Honoré, S., Cerf, C., Zahar, J.-R., & Brun-Buisson, C.
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-07-15
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-179
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W2104255090
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.42
- 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: Diagnosing Pneumonia during Mechanical Ventilation: The Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200212-1449oc
- The paper
- Fartoukh, M., Maître, B., Honoré, S., Cerf, C., Zahar, J.-R., & Brun-Buisson, C. (2003). Diagnosing Pneumonia during Mechanical Ventilation: The Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score Revisited. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200212-1449oc
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.