Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of PCR in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for Diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia: A Bivariate Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Open access
Fan, Li-Chao, Lu, Hai-Wen, Cheng, Ke-Bin, Li, Hui-Ping, Xu, Jin-Fu·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As a promising tool, PCR in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) has not been accepted as a diagnostic criterion for PJP. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a systematic review of published studies to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PCR assays in BALF for PJP. METHODS: Eligible studies from PubMed, Embase and Web of Science reporting PCR assays in BALF for diagnosing PJP were identified. A bivariate meta-analysis of the method's sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were analyzed. The post-test probability was performed to evaluate clinical usefulness. A summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve was used to evaluate overall performance. Subgroup analyses were carried out to analysis the potential heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen studies published between 1994 and 2012 were included. The summary sensitivity and specificity values (95% CI) of PCR in BALF for diagnosis of PJP were 98.3% (91.3%-99.7%) and 91.0% (82.7%-95.5%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 10.894 (5.569-21.309) and 0.018 (0.003-0.099), respectively. In a setting of 20% prevalence of PJP, the probability of PJP would be over 3-fold if the BALF-PCR test was positive, and the probability of PJP would be less than 0.5% if it was negative. The area under the SROC curve was 0.98 (0.97-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The method of PCR in BALF shows high sensitivity and good specificity for the diagnosis of PJP. However, clinical practice for the diagnosis of PJP should consider the consistent respiratory symptoms, radiographic changes and laboratory findings of the suspected 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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0073099

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 159

Metadata

Authors
Fan, L.-C., Lu, H.-W., Cheng, K.-B., Li, H.-P., & Xu, J.-F.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-09-04
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
e73099
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078488501
Cited by
159
References
3
FWCI
1.20
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: Evaluation of PCR in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for Diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia: A Bivariate Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0073099
The paper
Fan, L.-C., Lu, H.-W., Cheng, K.-B., Li, H.-P., & Xu, J.-F. (2013). Evaluation of PCR in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for Diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia: A Bivariate Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073099

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.