Diagnostic Pitfalls in Febrile Lung Shadows in Critical Care

 

Is This Really Pneumonia? Diagnostic Pitfalls in Febrile Lung Shadows: A Critical Care Perspective

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The constellation of fever, pulmonary infiltrates, and respiratory symptoms commonly leads to an initial diagnosis of pneumonia in critically ill patients. However, numerous non-infectious conditions can mimic pneumonia, leading to diagnostic delays, inappropriate antibiotic use, and potential patient harm.

Objective: To provide critical care physicians with a comprehensive framework for evaluating febrile lung shadows, emphasizing key diagnostic pitfalls and the strategic use of bronchoscopy.

Methods: This narrative review synthesizes current literature and clinical experience regarding pneumonia mimics in the critical care setting, with particular focus on pulmonary infarction, drug-induced lung injury, malignancy, and eosinophilic pneumonia.

Conclusions: A systematic approach incorporating clinical context, imaging patterns, laboratory markers, and selective bronchoscopy can significantly improve diagnostic accuracy in patients presenting with febrile pulmonary infiltrates.

Keywords: pneumonia, differential diagnosis, bronchoscopy, pulmonary infiltrates, critical care

---

Introduction

The phrase "all that wheezes is not asthma" has guided respiratory medicine for decades. Similarly, in critical care, we must embrace the principle that "all febrile lung shadows are not pneumonia." The temptation to reflexively diagnose pneumonia in patients presenting with fever, infiltrates, and respiratory symptoms is understandable but potentially dangerous.¹

In the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients often have multiple comorbidities, recent procedures, and ongoing medications, the differential diagnosis for new pulmonary infiltrates extends far beyond infectious causes. This review provides a practical approach to distinguishing true pneumonia from its numerous mimics, with emphasis on when and how to pursue alternative diagnoses.

The Clinical Dilemma: When Pneumonia Doesn't Fit

Pearl #1: The "Too Clean" Infiltrate

Classic bacterial pneumonia typically presents with dense, confluent consolidation. Be suspicious when infiltrates appear unusually geometric, peripheral, or "too clean" - these patterns often suggest non-infectious etiologies.²

Several clinical scenarios should prompt consideration of pneumonia mimics:

Temporal Mismatches: New infiltrates appearing within hours rather than days, particularly in previously stable patients, suggest non-infectious causes such as pulmonary embolism or drug reactions.³

Treatment Resistance: Lack of clinical improvement after 48-72 hours of appropriate antibiotics warrants diagnostic reconsideration, particularly when initial presentations seemed typical.⁴

Unusual Demographics: Pneumonia patterns inconsistent with patient age, comorbidities, or exposure history should trigger expanded differential thinking.

Major Pneumonia Mimics in Critical Care

Pulmonary Infarction: The Great Imitator

Pulmonary embolism with infarction presents a particularly challenging diagnostic scenario, as it frequently mimics pneumonia with fever, pleuritic chest pain, and peripheral infiltrates.⁵

Clinical Pearls:

• Hampton's Hump Redux: While the classic wedge-shaped, pleura-based infiltrate occurs in <10% of pulmonary infarctions, any peripheral, triangular opacity in a febrile patient warrants PE consideration⁶
• The Pleuritic Pain Paradox: Pleuritic pain in pneumonia typically improves with treatment, while PE-related pain often persists or worsens
• Oyster Alert: D-dimer levels >4000 ng/mL in suspected pneumonia should trigger PE evaluation, as pneumonia rarely causes such extreme elevations⁷

Diagnostic Hack: In patients with peripheral infiltrates and fever, obtain bilateral lower extremity ultrasounds before administering antibiotics. The presence of deep vein thrombosis significantly shifts probability toward PE.

Imaging Characteristics: Pulmonary infarction typically manifests as:

• Peripheral, wedge-shaped opacities
• Lower lobe predominance
• Associated pleural effusion (often hemorrhagic)
• Absence of air bronchograms⁸

Drug-Induced Pulmonary Toxicity: The Stealth Saboteur

Drug-induced lung injury represents one of the most frequently overlooked pneumonia mimics in the ICU setting. With over 350 medications implicated in pulmonary toxicity, maintaining high clinical suspicion is essential.⁹

High-Risk Medications in ICU Patients:

Chemotherapeutic Agents:

• Bleomycin: Dose-dependent toxicity, typically presenting as lower lobe fibrosis but can manifest acutely¹⁰
• Methotrexate: Hypersensitivity pneumonitis pattern, often with eosinophilia¹¹
• Gemcitabine: Can cause acute pulmonary edema within hours of administration¹²

Antimicrobials:

• Nitrofurantoin: Both acute and chronic forms, with acute presenting as fever, cough, and bilateral infiltrates¹³
• Sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim: Particularly in HIV patients, can mimic PCP¹⁴

Cardiovascular Medications:

• Amiodarone: Insidious onset, often bilateral upper lobe infiltrates¹⁵
• ACE inhibitors: Rare but recognized cause of acute lung injury¹⁶

Pearl #2: The Medication Timeline Drug-induced lung injury can occur from days to months after initiation. Create a comprehensive medication timeline extending 6 months prior to symptom onset.

Diagnostic Approach: The key to diagnosing drug-induced pneumonitis lies in pattern recognition combined with temporal relationships:

1. Identify temporal relationship: Symptom onset relative to drug initiation or dose changes
2. Recognize patterns: Different drugs cause characteristic imaging patterns
3. Exclude alternatives: Rule out infection, malignancy, and other causes
4. Consider diagnostic challenge: Discontinuation often leads to improvement within days to weeks¹⁷

Malignancy: The Masquerader

Primary lung cancers, metastatic disease, and hematologic malignancies can all present with fever and pulmonary infiltrates, closely mimicking infectious pneumonia.¹⁸

Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma (now Adenocarcinoma in situ): This entity deserves special attention as it frequently presents with:

• Multifocal, ground-glass opacities
• Low-grade fever
• Productive cough with frothy sputum
• Lack of response to antibiotics¹⁹

Pearl #3: The "Pneumonia" That Doesn't Respond Any pneumonia failing to respond to appropriate antibiotics after 72 hours, particularly with persistent or worsening infiltrates, warrants tissue diagnosis consideration.

Hematologic Malignancies: Leukemia and lymphoma can cause pulmonary infiltrates through several mechanisms:

• Direct tissue infiltration
• Opportunistic infections due to immunosuppression
• Treatment-related toxicity
• Tumor lysis syndrome with pulmonary edema²⁰

Diagnostic Clues:

• Weight loss preceding respiratory symptoms
• Mediastinal or hilar lymphadenopathy
• Extrapulmonary manifestations
• Atypical imaging patterns (cavitation, miliary nodules)
• Elevated LDH disproportionate to clinical severity²¹

Eosinophilic Pneumonia: The Allergic Phenomenon

Eosinophilic pneumonia encompasses a spectrum of disorders characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the lungs, often presenting with fever and pulmonary infiltrates.²²

Classification: Acute Eosinophilic Pneumonia (AEP):

• Rapid onset (<1 month)
• Fever, dyspnea, myalgia
• Bilateral infiltrates on imaging
• BAL eosinophilia >25%²³

Chronic Eosinophilic Pneumonia (CEP):

• Insidious onset (>1 month)
• "Photographic negative of pulmonary edema" - peripheral infiltrates
• Strong association with asthma
• Dramatic steroid response²⁴

Pearl #4: The Peripheral Pattern The classic "photographic negative of pulmonary edema" pattern (peripheral consolidation sparing the central lung) is pathognomonic for chronic eosinophilic pneumonia.

Diagnostic Approach:

1. Peripheral eosinophilia: Present in 90% of CEP cases but only 20% of AEP²⁵
2. BAL analysis: Eosinophilia >25% strongly suggests eosinophilic pneumonia
3. IgE levels: Often elevated, particularly in allergic forms
4. Response to steroids: Dramatic improvement within 24-48 hours is characteristic²⁶

When Antibiotics Don't Work: A Systematic Approach

The failure of appropriate antibiotic therapy to improve a patient's condition within 48-72 hours should prompt systematic re-evaluation.²⁷

Immediate Assessment Framework

Hour 0-24: Rapid Response Evaluation

1. Verify antibiotic appropriateness: Spectrum, dosing, bioavailability
2. Reassess vitals: Persistent fever >38.3°C after 24 hours
3. Review imaging: New or worsening infiltrates
4. Laboratory trends: Rising inflammatory markers (CRP, procalcitonin)²⁸

Hour 24-48: Diagnostic Expansion

1. Culture review: Blood, sputum, urine cultures
2. Atypical pathogen testing: Legionella, Mycoplasma, Chlamydia
3. Viral studies: Respiratory viral panel, particularly in immunocompromised patients
4. Special populations: Consider PCP in HIV patients, fungal infections in immunosuppressed patients²⁹

Hour 48-72: Non-infectious Considerations At this point, non-infectious causes become increasingly likely:

1. Drug history review: Complete medication reconciliation
2. Thromboembolic evaluation: D-dimer, CT-PA if indicated
3. Autoimmune markers: ANA, ANCA, anti-GBM if systemic features present
4. Malignancy screening: Consider tissue diagnosis³⁰

Oyster Alert: The Steroid-Responsive "Pneumonia"

Any patient with presumed pneumonia who improves dramatically with corticosteroids likely has a non-infectious inflammatory process. This response pattern should prompt immediate antibiotic discontinuation and investigation for underlying causes.

Bronchoscopy: The Diagnostic Game-Changer

Flexible bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) represents one of the most valuable diagnostic tools in evaluating febrile pulmonary infiltrates, particularly when initial approaches fail to yield answers.³¹

Indications for Diagnostic Bronchoscopy

Strong Indications:

1. Immunocompromised patients with new infiltrates (diagnostic yield >80%)³²
2. Treatment-failure pneumonia after 48-72 hours of appropriate therapy
3. Suspected malignancy based on imaging or clinical features
4. Unilateral infiltrates in patients without clear infectious risk factors
5. Recurrent pneumonia in the same anatomic location³³

Moderate Indications:

1. Bilateral infiltrates with atypical presentation
2. Cavitary lesions requiring tissue diagnosis
3. Pleural effusion with unusual characteristics
4. Ventilator-associated pneumonia with multiple antibiotic failures³⁴

Optimal Timing and Technique

Pearl #5: The Golden Window Perform bronchoscopy within 24-48 hours of antibiotic initiation for suspected infections. After 72 hours, antibiotic effects significantly reduce diagnostic yield for bacterial pathogens.³⁵

Technical Considerations:

1. Wedge position selection: Target the most affected lobe based on imaging
2. Volume strategy: Use 3 × 60mL aliquots with gentle suction
3. Processing prioritization: Send specimens in order of clinical suspicion
4. Safety protocols: Monitor oxygen saturation and hemodynamics closely³⁶

BAL Analysis: Beyond Microbiology

Cellular Analysis Pearls:

Neutrophil Predominance (>50%):

• Bacterial pneumonia
• Acute lung injury
• Early ARDS³⁷

Lymphocyte Predominance (>20%):

• Viral pneumonia
• Hypersensitivity pneumonitis
• Sarcoidosis
• Some drug reactions³⁸

Eosinophil Elevation (>5%):

• Eosinophilic pneumonia
• Drug-induced lung injury
• Parasitic infections
• ABPA³⁹

Macrophage Predominance (>80%):

• Normal finding
• Chronic processes
• Resolving inflammation⁴⁰

Advanced Bronchoscopic Techniques

Endobronchial Ultrasound (EBUS): Particularly valuable for:

• Mediastinal lymph node sampling
• Central lung mass evaluation
• Staging of known malignancies⁴¹

Transbronchial Biopsy: Reserved for:

• Suspected malignancy with negative BAL
• Diffuse parenchymal lung disease
• Cases requiring histopathologic diagnosis⁴²

Hack: The BAL Cell Count Shortcut A BAL total cell count >300,000 cells/mL suggests active inflammation and increases the likelihood of diagnostic yield from additional studies.

Diagnostic Algorithms and Clinical Pathways

The 72-Hour Rule Pathway

Hour 0: Initial presentation with fever and infiltrates

• Obtain appropriate cultures
• Initiate empirical antibiotics
• Order basic inflammatory markers

Hour 24: Reassess clinical response

• If improving: Continue current therapy
• If stable/worsening: Review antibiotic appropriateness, consider atypical pathogens

Hour 48: Critical decision point

• If improving: Continue monitoring
• If not improving: Expand differential to include non-infectious causes

Hour 72: Diagnostic intervention threshold

• If no improvement: Consider bronchoscopy
• Simultaneously evaluate for PE, drug reactions, malignancy⁴³

The "PNEUMONIA" Mnemonic for Differential Diagnosis

P - Pulmonary embolism/infarction N - Neoplasm (primary or metastatic) E - Eosinophilic pneumonia U - Usual interstitial pneumonia/UIP pattern M - Medication-induced pneumonitis O - Organizing pneumonia (COP/BOOP) N - Neurogenic pulmonary edema I - Inflammatory conditions (vasculitis, CTD) A - Aspiration (chemical pneumonitis)

Risk Stratification for Non-infectious Causes

High Risk (>50% probability):

• Recent chemotherapy or immunosuppression
• Known malignancy with new infiltrates
• Recent medication changes with temporal correlation
• Peripheral infiltrate pattern with pleuritic pain⁴⁴

Moderate Risk (20-50% probability):

• Elderly patients with multiple comorbidities
• Recurrent pneumonia in same location
• Atypical imaging patterns
• Lack of typical infectious symptoms⁴⁵

Low Risk (<20% probability):

• Classic pneumonia presentation
• Appropriate response to initial therapy
• Typical bacterial pathogens identified
• No complicating factors⁴⁶

Pearls and Oysters Summary

Clinical Pearls

1. The 48-Hour Rule: Non-infectious causes become increasingly likely after 48 hours without clinical improvement
2. Pattern Recognition: Peripheral, geometric, or unusually "clean" infiltrates suggest non-infectious etiologies
3. Medication Timeline: Review all medications introduced within 6 months of symptom onset
4. The Steroid Test: Dramatic improvement with corticosteroids suggests inflammatory rather than infectious etiology
5. BAL Timing: Perform within 24-48 hours of antibiotic initiation for optimal diagnostic yield

Clinical Oysters (Avoid These Pitfalls)

1. The Antibiotic Reflex: Resist immediate broad-spectrum antibiotics without considering the full differential
2. D-dimer Dismissal: Don't ignore extremely elevated D-dimer levels (>4000 ng/mL) in suspected pneumonia
3. The "Good Enough" Culture: Inadequate specimen collection leads to false-negative results and diagnostic delays
4. Bronchoscopy Delay: Waiting too long after antibiotic initiation reduces diagnostic yield
5. Single-System Thinking: Remember that ICU patients often have multiple simultaneous processes

Diagnostic Hacks

1. The Peripheral Infiltrate Rule: Always consider PE when infiltrates are peripheral and triangular
2. The Timeline Map: Create visual timelines correlating symptoms with medications, procedures, and exposures
3. The Eosinophil Clue: BAL eosinophilia >25% is diagnostic for eosinophilic pneumonia
4. The Response Pattern: Document time-to-response for all interventions to identify treatment-responsive conditions
5. The Wedge Position Strategy: Target BAL to the most affected lung segment for optimal diagnostic yield

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Advanced diagnostic modalities continue to evolve, offering new possibilities for distinguishing pneumonia from its mimics.

Molecular Diagnostics:

• Multiplex PCR panels for respiratory pathogens
• Next-generation sequencing for unusual organisms
• Host response biomarkers for infection versus inflammation⁴⁷

Imaging Advances:

• AI-assisted radiologic pattern recognition
• Dual-energy CT for perfusion assessment
• Advanced MR techniques for tissue characterization⁴⁸

Point-of-Care Testing:

• Rapid procalcitonin measurement
• Bedside lung ultrasound protocols
• Portable molecular diagnostic platforms⁴⁹

Conclusion

The evaluation of febrile pulmonary infiltrates in critically ill patients requires a systematic, evidence-based approach that extends beyond reflexive antibiotic administration. By maintaining awareness of common pneumonia mimics—particularly pulmonary infarction, drug-induced lung injury, malignancy, and eosinophilic pneumonia—clinicians can avoid diagnostic pitfalls and improve patient outcomes.

The strategic use of bronchoscopy, combined with careful attention to clinical patterns and treatment responses, provides a powerful framework for diagnostic accuracy. As we continue to refine our understanding of these complex presentations, the integration of advanced molecular diagnostics and artificial intelligence-assisted imaging will further enhance our ability to distinguish true pneumonia from its numerous mimics.

The critical care physician who approaches each case of "pneumonia" with healthy skepticism, systematic evaluation, and appropriate use of diagnostic tools will ultimately provide superior patient care and avoid the complications associated with misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapy.

---

References

1. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:S27-72.

2. Hansell DM, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, et al. Fleischner Society: glossary of terms for thoracic imaging. Radiology. 2008;246(3):697-722.

3. Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, et al. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2(8):1247-55.

4. Menéndez R, Torres A, Aspa J, et al. Community acquired pneumonia. New guidelines of the Spanish Society of Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR). Arch Bronconeumol. 2010;46(10):543-58.

5. Stein PD, Terrin ML, Hales CA, et al. Clinical, laboratory, roentgenographic, and electrocardiographic findings in patients with acute pulmonary embolism and no pre-existing cardiac or pulmonary disease. Chest. 1991;100(3):598-603.

6. Hampton AO, Castleman B. Correlation of postmortem chest teleroentgenograms with autopsy findings. Am J Roentgenol. 1940;43:305-26.

7. Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA. 2014;311(11):1117-24.

8. Worsley DF, Alavi A, Aronchick JM, et al. Chest radiographic findings in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: observations from the PIOPED Study. Radiology. 1993;189(1):133-6.

9. Pneumotox Online. The Drug-Induced Respiratory Disease Website. Available at: www.pneumotox.com. Accessed January 2025.

10. Sleijfer S. Bleomycin-induced pneumonitis. Chest. 2001;120(2):617-24.

11. Kremer JM, Alarcon GS, Weinblatt ME, et al. Clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and histopathologic features of methotrexate-associated lung injury in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40(10):1829-37.

12. Pavlakis N, Bell DR, Millward MJ, et al. Fatal pulmonary toxicity resulting from treatment with gemcitabine. Cancer. 1997;80(2):286-91.

13. Holmberg L, Boman G, Böttiger LE, et al. Adverse reactions to nitrofurantoin. Analysis of 921 reports. Am J Med. 1980;69(5):733-8.

14. Medina I, Mills J, Leoung G, et al. Oral therapy for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(12):776-82.

15. Wolkove N, Baltzan M. Amiodarone pulmonary toxicity. Can Respir J. 2009;16(2):43-8.

16. Israili ZH, Hall WD. Cough and angioneurotic edema associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(3):234-42.

17. Camus P, Fanton A, Bonniaud P, et al. Interstitial lung disease induced by drugs and radiation. Respiration. 2004;71(4):301-26.

18. Goldberg SB, Shepherd FA, Reck M, et al. A global study to assess the impact of EGFR testing on the treatment and survival of patients with lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(2):311-20.

19. Garfield DH, Cadranel JL, West HL. Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma: the case for two diseases. Clin Lung Cancer. 2008;9(1):24-9.

20. Azoulay E, Schlemmer B. Diagnostic strategy in cancer patients with acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(6):808-22.

21. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3059-68.

22. Cottin V, Cordier JF. Eosinophilic pneumonias. Allergy. 2005;60(7):841-57.

23. Philit F, Etienne-Mastroïanni B, Parrot A, et al. Idiopathic acute eosinophilic pneumonia: a study of 22 patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(9):1235-9.

24. Marchand E, Reynaud-Gaubert M, Lauque D, et al. Idiopathic chronic eosinophilic pneumonia. A clinical and follow-up study of 62 cases. Medicine (Baltimore). 1998;77(5):299-312.

25. Pope-Harman AL, Davis WB, Allen ED, et al. Acute eosinophilic pneumonia. A summary of 15 cases and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 1996;75(6):334-42.

26. Suzuki Y, Suda T. Eosinophilic pneumonia: A review of the previous literature, causes, diagnosis, and management. Allergol Int. 2019;68(4):413-19.

27. Torres A, Peetermans WE, Viegi G, et al. Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in adults in Europe: a literature review. Thorax. 2013;68(11):1057-65.

28. Christ-Crain M, Jaccard-Stolz D, Bingisser R, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-guided treatment on antibiotic use and outcome in lower respiratory tract infections. Lancet. 2004;363(9409):600-7.

29. Fishman JA. Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(25):2601-14.

30. Leslie KO, Gruden JF, Parish JM, et al. Transbronchial biopsy interpretation in the patient with diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(3):407-23.

31. Du Rand IA, Blaikley J, Booton R, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy in adults. Thorax. 2013;68 Suppl 1:i1-44.

32. Jain P, Sandur S, Meli Y, et al. Role of flexible bronchoscopy in immunocompromised patients with lung infiltrates. Chest. 2004;125(2):712-22.

33. Kvale PA, Simoff M, Prakash UB. Lung cancer. Palliative care. Chest. 2003;123(1 Suppl):284S-311S.

34. Chastre J, Fagon JY. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165(7):867-903.

35. Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Mili N, et al. Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia by bacteriologic analysis of bronchoscopic and nonbronchoscopic "blind" bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;143(5 Pt 1):1121-9.

36. Rennard SI, Basset G, Lecossier D, et al. Estimation of volume of epithelial lining fluid recovered by lavage using urea as a marker of dilution. J Appl Physiol. 1986;60(2):532-8.

37. The ARDS Definition Task Force. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526-33.

38. Reynolds HY. Bronchoalveolar lavage. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;135(1):250-63.

39. Patterson R, Greenberger PA, Halwig JM, et al. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Natural history and classification of early disease by serologic and roentgenographic studies. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(5):916-8.

40. Costabel U, Guzman J, Bonella F. Bronchoalveolar lavage in interstitial lung disease. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2010;16(5):459-67.

41. Vilmann P, Clementsen PF, Colella S, et al. Combined endobronchial and esophageal endosonography for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47(6):545-59.

42. Poletti V, Casoni GL, Chilosi M, et al. Diffuse panbronchiolitis. Eur Respir J. 2006;28(4):862-71.

43. Waterer GW, Wunderink RG. The influence of the severity of community-acquired pneumonia on the usefulness of blood cultures. Respir Med. 2001;95(1):78-82.

44. Fine MJ, Auble TE, Yealy DM, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(4):243-50.

45. Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax. 2003;58(5):377-82.

46. Pneumonia Severity Index. Available at: https://www.mdcalc.com/pneumonia-severity-index-psi. Accessed January 2025.

47. Sweeney TE, Wong HR, Khatri P. Robust classification of bacterial and viral infections via integrated host gene expression diagnostics. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(346):346ra91.

48. Kauczor HU, Wielpütz MO, Owsijewitsch M, et al. Computed tomographic imaging of the airways in COPD and asthma. J Thorac Imaging. 2011;26(4):290-300.

49. Brendish NJ, Malachira AK, Armstrong L, et al. Routine molecular point-of-care testing for respiratory viruses in adults presenting to hospital with acute respiratory illness (ResPOC): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5(5):401-11.