In medical practice, an early identification of the pathogen is important for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia [13]. Even simple clues for the bacterial type are helpful to early clinical decisions, as most antibiotics target a group of bacteria, not a specific bacterium. Though polymerase chain reaction assays identify specific bacteria in hours, it can only detect targeted bacteria, which may miss some atypical bacteria or normal flora causing pneumonia, and has relatively high lab requirements. Culture provides more accurate evidence of bacterial infection, but it has limited sensitivity and long turnaround time [14].
The accuracy of SGS is in doubt, though it is quick and convenient in use. Previous studies of SGS suggested it was sensitive and specific for etiologic pathogens of bacterial pneumonia, when sputum culture was taken as the reference standard [8, 15, 16]. However, it is controversial to make etiologic diagnosis in pneumonia by sputum culture results, due to concerns of representativeness and contamination [4]. BALF is commonly accepted as the ideal specimen for causative pathogen detection. The value of SGS would be more accurately assessed when BALF culture is used as the reference standard.
In our study, the overall sensitivity of SGS was 70%, with variety in different bacterial types. By contrast, the specificity and the agreement with BALF culture were both poor, indicating the limited value of SGS in predicting BALF pathogens. Previous studies suggested the specificity of SGS for G-cocci could be up to 98%, as it was calculated as the proportion of negative G-cocci SGSs among negative G-cocci cultures [16]. In that way, the concordance between SGS and sputum culture was neglected. For example, the SGS could be G+cocci and the culture could be G-bacilli, though they are both negative for G-cocci. In our study, specificity was only calculated as the proportion of negative SGSs among negative BALF cultures, revealing the poor specificity of SGS.
One obvious disadvantage of sputum culture is the difficulty to attribute causality. Data on its concordance with BALF culture is helpful in answering this question. Of note, the interval between sputum culture and BALF culture was seldom mentioned in previous studies. Comparison of these two methods may be biased when the interval is long. This was avoided to a great extent in our study, as the interval was less than 24 h. In our study, the agreement between sputum and BALF, rather than a simple comparison of pathogen positive rates, was analyzed. The moderate agreement suggested sputum culture is helpful in predicting BALF culture.
It is unclear whether BGS can provide clues for etiologic pathogens of pneumonia. Theoretically, it is valuable as BALF is an ideal specimen type and Gram stain is quick. In our study, its sensitivity was 60% and specificity was 71%. There was a moderate agreement between BGS and BALF culture, supporting its value in etiologic diagnosis when BALF culture result is pending.
This study has limitations due to the retrospective nature and small sample size. A prospective study with simultaneous collection of sputum and BALF specimens can avoid the time interval of different specimens. As expectorated sputum and nasotracheal suctioned sputum samples were both named “sputum” in the lab report, the specific sputum origin was not clear. Sample sizes of SGS, sputum culture, and BGS would be greatly increased if these tests were performed in every case. Data would be richer if polymerase chain reaction assays or whole-genome sequencing for bacteria were performed [17,18,19].