Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 628

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Clinical Algorithm to Diagnose Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill Patients

Blot, Stijn I., Taccone, Fabio Silvio, Van den Abeele, Anne-Marie, Bulpa, Pierre, Meersseman, Wouter, Brusselaers, Nele, Dimopoulos, George, Paiva, José A., Misset, Benoit, Rello, Jordi, Vandewoude, Koenraad, Vogelaers, Dirk·2012·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: The clinical relevance of Aspergillus-positive endotracheal aspirates in critically ill patients is difficult to assess. OBJECTIVES: We externally validate a clinical algorithm to discriminate Aspergillus colonization from putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in this patient group. METHODS: We performed a multicenter (n = 30) observational study including critically ill patients with one or more Aspergillus-positive endotracheal aspirate cultures (n = 524). The diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm was evaluated using 115 patients with histopathologic data, considered the gold standard. Subsequently, the diagnostic workout of the algorithm was compared on the total cohort (n = 524), with the categorization based on the diagnostic criteria of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 115 histopathology-controlled patients, 79 had proven aspergillosis. The algorithm judged 86 of 115 cases to have putative aspergillosis. This diagnosis was confirmed in 72 and rejected in 14 patients. The algorithm judged 29 patients to have Aspergillus colonization. This was confirmed in 22 and rejected in 7 patients. The algorithm had a specificity of 61% and a sensitivity of 92%. The positive and negative predictive values were 61 and 92%, respectively. In the total cohort (n = 524), 79 patients had proven invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (15.1%). According to the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group criteria, 32 patients had probable aspergillosis (6.1%) and 413 patients were not classifiable (78.8%). The algorithm judged 199 patients to have putative aspergillosis (38.0%) and 246 to have Aspergillus colonization (46.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm demonstrated favorable operating characteristics to discriminate Aspergillus respiratory tract colonization from invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill patients.

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/rccm.201111-1978oc

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 628

Metadata

Authors
Blot, S. I., Taccone, F. S., Van den Abeele, A.-M., Bulpa, P., Meersseman, W., Brusselaers, N., Dimopoulos, G., Paiva, J. A., Misset, B., Rello, J., Vandewoude, K., & Vogelaers, D.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2012-07-01
Volume
186
Issue
1
Pages
56-64
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2167423543
Cited by
628
References
6
FWCI
12.75
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: A Clinical Algorithm to Diagnose Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201111-1978oc
The paper
Blot, S. I., Taccone, F. S., Van den Abeele, A.-M., Bulpa, P., Meersseman, W., Brusselaers, N., Dimopoulos, G., Paiva, J. A., Misset, B., Rello, J., Vandewoude, K., & Vogelaers, D. (2012). A Clinical Algorithm to Diagnose Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill Patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201111-1978oc

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.