Comparison of Microbiologic and Cytologic Results for Br

支气管肺泡灌洗标本通常分为细胞学和微生物学进行实验室分析。由于这两个实验室在这些标本的后处理中使用了不同的方法，我们认为审查每个实验室在这些标本上获得的结果是有用的。这样的审查可能有助于确定所使用的不同程序的相对敏感性，建议可能需要消除的冗余区域，并有助于确定最有可能产生临床显著结果的程序。迄今为止分析的数据结果表明，细胞学制备物比微生物学中制备的涂片对直接检测重要真菌病原体更敏感，这可能是因为细胞学中用于制备涂片的材料体积更大。收集并部分分析了约7年的数据，以评估两个实验室中进行的程序的相对灵敏度，不仅用于真菌，还用于检测其他病原体，如分枝杆菌和卡氏肺孢子虫。为了处理更紧迫的项目，暂时推迟了对数据的进一步分析。最近恢复了数据分析，包括最近几年的数据分析，我们希望在明年完成该项目。

Bronchoalveolar lavage specimens are usually split between cytology and microbiology for laboratory analysis. Because different methodologies are used by these two laboratories in the work-up of these specimens, we thought it would be useful to review the results obtained on these specimens by each laboratory. Such a review might help define the relative sensitivities of the different procedures used, suggest areas of redundancy that might be candidates for elimination, and help identify the procedures most likely to produce clinically significant results. Results from the data analyzed thus far indicate that cytology preparations are more sensitive for the direct detection of significant fungal pathogens than the smears prepared in microbiology, presumably because of the larger volume of material used for preparation of smears in cytology. The data for approximately 7 years have been collected and partially analyzed to assess the relative sensitivities of the procedures performed in the two laboratories not only for fungi but also for the detection of other pathogens such as mycobacteria and Pneumocystis carinii. Further analysis of the data had been temporarily postponed to deal with more pressing projects. The analysis of the data, including data from more recent years, has recently been resumed, and we hope to complete the project during the next year.