The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Early, accurate diagnosis is fundamental in the management of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The aim of this qualitative review was to compare various criteria of diagnosing VAP in the intensive care unit (ICU) with a special emphasis on the value of clinical diagnosis, microbiological culture techniques, and biomarkers of host response. Methods: A MEDLINE search was performed using the keyword 'ventilator associated pneumonia' AND 'diagnosis'. Our search was limited to human studies published between January 1966 and June 2007. Only studies of at least 25 adult patients were included. Predefined variables were collected, including year of publication, study design (prospective/retrospective), number of patients included, and disease group. Results: Of 572 articles fulfilling the initial search criteria, 159 articles were chosen for detailed review of the full text. A total of 64 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in our review. Clinical criteria, used in combination, may be helpful in diagnosing VAP, however, the considerable inter-observer variability and the moderate performance should be taken in account. Bacteriologic data do not increase the accuracy of diagnosis as compared to clinical diagnosis. Quantitative cultures obtained by different methods seem to be rather equivalent in diagnosing VAP. Blood cultures are relatively insensitive to diagnose pneumonia. The rapid availability of cytological data, including inflammatory cells and Gram stains, may be useful in initial therapeutic decisions in patients with suspected VAP. C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells are promising biomarkers in diagnosing VAP. Conclusion: An integrated approach should be followed in diagnosing and treating patients with VAP, including early antibiotic therapy and subsequent rectification according to clinical response and results of bacteriologic cultures.
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
Cassidy, M. R., Rosenkranz, P., McCabe, K., Rosen, J. E., & McAneny, D. (2013) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.358 · Cited by 255
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Rea-Neto, A., Youssef, N. C. M., Tuche, F., Brunkhorst, F., Ranieri, V. M., Reinhart, K., & Sakr, Y.
- Venue
- Critical Care
- Published
- 2008-04-21
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- R56-R56
- ISSN
- 1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2011596772
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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 ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc6877
- The paper
- Rea-Neto, A., Youssef, N. C. M., Tuche, F., Brunkhorst, F., Ranieri, V. M., Reinhart, K., & Sakr, Y. (2008). Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review of the literature. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6877
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.