Cited by 25Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityNosocomial Infections in ICUAsthma and respiratory diseases

Is Bulpa criteria suitable for the diagnosis of probable invasive pulmonary Aspergillosis in critically ill patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A comparative study with EORTC/ MSG and ICU criteria

Open access
Huang, Linna, He, Hangyong, Jin, Jingjing, Zhan, Qingyuan·2017·BMC Infectious Diseases

Abstract

Three diagnostic criteria have been proposed used for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) diagnosis, namely EORTC/ MSG criteria, Bulpa criteria and intensive care unit (ICU) criteria. The Bulpa criteria were proposed to diagnose IPA in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients specially. Our aim is to verify that whether the Bulpa criteria are the most suitable for diagnosing probable IPA in critically ill COPD patients compared with the other two criteria. We included critically ill COPD patients admitted to the ICU from April 2006 to August 2013. Patients were classified into four populations: population one (n 1 = 59) comprised all included patients; population two (n 2 = 24) comprised patients with positive mycological findings (both positive cultures and positive serologic tests); population three (n 3 = 18) comprised patients with positive lower respiratory tracts (LRTs) isolation; and population four (n 4 = 5) comprised proven IPA patients with histopathology. Patients in four groups were diagnosed as probable IPA using three criteria respectively, and the “diagnostic rate” of each criteria were compared with each other. Then, the reasons for differences in “diagnostic rate” were analyzed in population two. Finally, the modified Bulpa criteria were proposed. Bulpa criteria yielded the highest “diagnostic rate” of probable IPA followed by the ICU criteria, while the EORTC/ MSG criteria provided the lowest rates in four populations (the “diagnostic rate” of probable IPA was 33.9%, 16.9% and 6.8% in population one, p = 0.001; 83.3%, 41.7% and 16.7% in population two, p < 0.001; 100%, 55.6% and 22.2% in population three, p < 0.001; 100%, 60% and 20% in population four, p = 0.036). The reasons for the highest “diagnostic rate” by Bulpa criteria were its less strict requirements regarding the doses/courses of steroid use and typical computed tomography (CT) findings. Finally, the modified Bulpa criteria for probable IPA were proposed for critically ill COPD patients admitted to ICU, mainly involving revised interpretations of microbiological findings. Among the existing three criteria, the Bulpa criteria are the most suitable for diagnosing probable IPA in critically ill COPD patients admitted to ICU. A modified criteria maybe proposed for better diagnosis,and its clinical validity need to be verified in future studies.

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 · 10.1186/s12879-017-2307-y

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A large proportion of IPA cases still are not detected by existing criteria, especially in nonneutropenic patients who possess atypical clinical and radiographic features of infection.

    “However, a large proportion of IPA cases still are not detected by existing criteria, especially in nonneutropenic patients who possess atypical clinical and radiographic features of infection (95–97).”

    From Aspergillus fumigatus and Aspergillosis in 2019 (2019) · cites this paper as [97]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, L., He, H., Jin, J., & Zhan, Q.
Affiliations
  • China-Japan Friendship Hospital (CN)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhan, Qingyuan
Venue
BMC Infectious Diseases
Published
2017-03-14
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
209-209
ISSN
1471-2334 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2596189086
Cited by
25
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals’ Youth Programme (QML 20150301)
  • National Key Research and Development Programme—Major Chronic Non-communicable Diseases’ Prevention and Control (QML 2016YFC1304300)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
Keywords
invasive pulmonary aspergillosis, EORTC/MSG criteria, diagnostic criteria, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, critically ill patients, diagnostic rate, corticosteroid use, computed tomography findings, serologic tests, histopathology, immunosuppression
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Opportunistic Infections, Prognosis, Critical Illness, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis

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