ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
The impact of sputum sample quality on sputum culture results: a retrospective analysis of clinical microbiology sputum culture data spanning 10 years.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in molecular diagnostics, sputum culture remains fundamental for the microbiological diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections. Current guidelines recommend rejecting unacceptable sputum specimens, yet their actual diagnostic yield, pathogen distribution, and impact on antimicrobial resistance assessment have not been systematically evaluated using large-scale data. A retrospective analysis was performed on 143,101 sputum culture and quality assessment records collected at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital between 2015 and 2025. Specimens were classified as acceptable or unacceptable according to the Murray-Washington criteria, with the same period bronchoalveolar lavage fluid cultures included as comparator group. Results: The overall culture-positivity rate was significantly higher in acceptable than in unacceptable specimens (57.28% vs. 50.87%; Odds Ratio = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.27-1.32, Conclusion: The large-scale findings support cautious, contextual interpretation of unacceptable sputum results, particularly when better specimens cannot be obtained. This approach helps preserve critical diagnostic information and avoid unnecessary antimicrobial escalation.
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.