Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Measurement of inflammatory indices in induced sputum: effects of selection of sputum to minimize salivary contamination

Open access
Pizzichini, E, Pizzichini, MM, Efthimiadis, A, Hargreave, FE, Dolovich, J·1996·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Sputum examination is being used increasingly as a noninvasive method to assess airway inflammation. Expectorated sputum has variable contamination with saliva. Methods of processing have included the selection of portions of the sample considered to be representative of pulmonary origin versus use of the whole specimen, which is confounded by varying volumes of saliva. We compared cell profiles and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) concentration in sputum selected from the expectorate and in the usually discarded residual portion to determine to what degree salivary contamination is minimized and if the results are representative of lower respiratory secretions. Sputum was induced with hypertonic saline in six healthy and nine asthmatic subjects. All portions considered to be of pure lower respiratory tract origin were selected from the residual. The selected and residual portions were treated with dithiothreitol, total cell counts and cell viability were obtained, cytospins were made for differential cell counts and supernatant was collected for ECP assay. Selected portions of the specimens, in comparison with the residual portion showed: little squamous cell contamination (median 1.2 vs 70%; p < 0.001); higher total cell counts.mL-1 (5.1 vs 0.5 x 10(6) cells.mL-1; p < 0.001); higher number of viable nonsquamous cells per sample (1.9 vs 0.6 x 10(6) cells; p < 0.001); higher slide quality score (7 vs 4; p < 0.001); and higher levels of ECP (768 vs 136 micrograms.L-1; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the differential cell counts of eosinophils (1.3 vs 3.8%), neutrophils (44 vs 32%), and lymphocytes (0.6 vs 0.6%). While the proportion of macrophages was lower (36 vs 54%; p < 0.05), the absolute number (41 vs 19 x 10(4) cells; p < 0.05) was higher in the selected portion. In summary, selection of all portions of induced sputum from the expectorate minimized the confounding influence of saliva. Loss of nonsquamous cells in the residual portion was variable but usually less than one third of those in the selected portion. With one exception, this loss had little influence on the differential counts of inflammatory cells. Similar observations apply to eosinophilic cationic protein levels. We conclude that, in healthy subjects and treated asthmatics, inflammatory markers in the selected portion of the expectorate can be used to represent those in the lower respiratory tract in general.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.96.09061174

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 298

Metadata

Authors
Pizzichini, E., Pizzichini, M., Efthimiadis, A., Hargreave, F., & Dolovich, J.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
1996-06-01
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
1174-1180
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2167913542
Cited by
298
References
0
FWCI
6.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Measurement of inflammatory indices in induced sputum: effects of selection of sputum to minimize salivary contamination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.96.09061174
The paper
Pizzichini, E., Pizzichini, M., Efthimiadis, A., Hargreave, F., & Dolovich, J. (1996). Measurement of inflammatory indices in induced sputum: effects of selection of sputum to minimize salivary contamination. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.96.09061174

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.