Trial reportPloS one2021
Safety of research bronchoscopy with BAL in stable adult patients with cystic fibrosis.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Advanced models for respiratory disease and drug studies.Medicinal research reviews · 2023Review
- The clinical yield of bronchoscopy in the management of cystic fibrosis: A retrospective multicenter study.Pediatric pulmonology · 2023Article
- Role of bronchoscopy in critically ill patients managed in intermediate care units - indications and complications: A narrative review.World journal of critical care medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Data on adverse events from research bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is lacking. As research bronchoscopy with BAL is useful for isolation of immune cells and investigation of CF lung microbiome, we sought to investigate the safety of bronchoscopy in adult patients with CF. Between November 2016 and September 2019, we performed research bronchoscopies on CF subjects (32) and control subjects (82). Control subjects were nonsmokers without respiratory disease. CF subjects had mild or moderate obstructive lung disease (FEV1 > 50% predicted) and no evidence of recent CF pulmonary exacerbation. There was no significant difference in the age or sex of each cohort. Neither group experienced life threatening adverse events. The number of adverse events was similar between CF and control subjects. The most common adverse events were sore throat and cough, which occurred at similar frequencies in control and CF subjects. Fever and headache occurred more frequently in CF subjects. However, the majority of fevers were seen in CF subjects with FEV1 values below 65% predicted. We found that CF subjects had similar adverse event profiles following research bronchoscopy compared to healthy subjects. While CF subjects had a higher rate of fevers, this adverse event occurred with greater frequency in CF subjects with lower FEV1. Our data demonstrate that research bronchoscopy with BAL is safe in CF subjects and that safety profile is improved if bronchoscopies are limited to subjects with an FEV1 > 65% predicted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.