key: cord-1052253-xekj7kxm
authors: Murdoch, David R; Chambers, Stephen T
title: Atypical pneumonia—time to breathe new life into a useful term?
date: 2009-07-20
journal: Lancet Infect Dis
DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(09)70148-3
sha: f29336df8a7b5abec390463da7cf7e81eaa506c7
doc_id: 1052253
cord_uid: xekj7kxm

The term atypical pneumonia was originally used to describe an unusual presentation of pneumonia. It is now more widely used in reference to either pneumonia caused by a relatively common group of pathogens, or to a distinct clinical syndrome the existence of which is difficult to demonstrate. As such, the use of atypical pneumonia is often inaccurate, potentially confusing, and of dubious scientific merit. We need to return to the original meaning of atypical pneumonia and restrict its use to describe pneumonia that is truly unusual in clinical presentation, epidemiology, or both.

The term atypical pneumonia has become wellestablished in medical parlance. Originally used to describe an unusual presentation of pneumonia, the term has since evolved to become much broader in meaning. Atypical pneumonia is now more widely used in reference to either pneumonia caused by a relatively common group of pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella spp, and Chlamydophila pneumoniae), or to a distinct clinical syndrome the existence of which is diffi cult to demonstrate. As such, the term atypical pneumonia as most widely used today is often inaccurate, potentially confusing, of dubious scientifi c merit, and unhelpful.

In this Personal View we review the history and evolution of the term atypical pneumonia. We encourage a return to the original meaning: pneumonia that has truly unusual clinical or epidemiological characteristics, or both, that warrants further investigation or public health response. This restricted defi nition of atypical pneumonia has both clearer meaning and purpose.

The fi rst reference to atypical pneumonia is unknown, although the term was clearly developed at a time when knowledge of the microbial causes of pneumonia extended little beyond the pneumococcus (Streptococcus pneumoniae) and the tubercule bacillus (Mycobacterium tuberculosis). Medical writings from the late 19th century make no specifi c mention of this syndrome, 1-4 but there are several references to the term in subsequent decades. Although a 1938 paper by Hobart Reimann, 5 a Philadelphia physician, clearly popularised the concept (fi gure), many others had made reference to atypical pneumonia in earlier years. Nothnagel's Encylopedia of Practical Medicine 6 from 1903 refers to cases of atypical pneumonia. In 1910, the British Medical Journal reported that Sir John Broadbent 7 read a paper on atypical pneumonia to the Medical Society of London, and Thomas Oliver 8 made a passing reference to atypical pneumonias in his lecture to the York Medical Society. In 1911, Jay Perkins 9 devoted a whole article to the topic. He defi ned atypical pneumonia as those cases of pneumonia for which a specifi c causative organism was unknown, and noted the variable features and irregular clinical course of this disease. Thomas Hastings and Walter Niles 10 in their 1911 paper on sputum bacteriology, Percy Kidd 11 in his 1912 Lumleian lectures to the Royal College of Physicians of London, and Ernest Glynn 12 in his 1913 description of epidemic pneumonia use the term to refer to a diverse group of pneumonias that diff er from the ordinary. In the 1920s and 1930s, atypical pneumonia had become a more accepted term and appeared in a several reports of unusual pneumonia syndromes. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] Common to these early, often independent, references to atypical pneumonia are descriptions of cases of pneumonia that diff ered in some manner from typical lobar pneumonia caused by the pneumococcus. These were simply descriptions of unusual presentations of a common disease and there was no attempt to describe a unifying atypical pneumonia syndrome. Indeed, Perkins, in his 1911 paper, made the comment that "in time, I believe, improved methods of diagnosis will remove many of these cases from the category of atypical pneumonia".

In the 1940s, atypical pneumonia became more defi ned as a distinct clinical entity. Primary atypical pneumonia syndrome was commonly described as "characteristically gradual in onset, with constitutional as well as respiratory symptoms, and pulmonary changes more manifest in roentgenograms than by physical examination. The course of illness varies considerably in duration and severity. Complications are uncommon and although convalescence is frequently protracted the illness almost invariably terminates with complete recovery." 19 Others further refi ned the description by noting the ineff ectiveness of sulphonamide or penicillin therapy and the lack of laboratory evidence for infection with pneumococcus or other known pathogens.

Atypical pneumonia was the subject of intense study during World War 2, especially by the US military. During periods of the 1940s, atypical pneumonia was reported as being almost continuously present in the large army post at Fort Bragg, NC, USA. 20 There was a high incidence among new recruits, with the fi rst 4 weeks of army life being particularly noted for increased susceptibility to respiratory diseases. Outbreaks of atypical pneumonia were also described among military personnel from other regions of the world. [21] [22] [23] [24] Clinicians recognised that atypical Personal View pneumonia had diverse causes rather than a single cause. However, there were many descriptions of clusters of atypical pneumonia syndrome among military recruits. Each cluster probably represented an outbreak caused by a single pathogen, and many were likely to have been due to M pneumoniae. Indeed, this was confi rmed by retrospective testing of stored sera from some patients with primary atypical pneumonia from Fort Bragg. 25 Descriptions of these outbreaks gave credence to the concept of a distinct atypical pneumonia syndrome and the vigorous adoption of the term by some authorities. 20, 26, 27 Other studies of atypical pneumonia in more diverse populations with sporadic disease reported a more varied clinical picture, presumably refl ecting the presence of various causative agents. One such study 19 at the Hospital of The Rockefeller Institute, NY, USA, during 1942-44 described 106 patients diagnosed with primary atypical pneumonia. Pneumococci were isolated from half of these patients, mostly by inoculation of sputum into mice. However, a few patients had pneumococci detected in their sputum by direct examination with the quellung technique, and no patient had a positive blood culture. Of the pneumococcal isolates, none belonged to serotypes 1 or 2 that were most commonly associated at the time with lobar pneumonia and severe disease. Many patients might have had pneumococcal pneumonia, perhaps due to pneumococcal strains less strongly associated with severe disease.

Through the second half of the 20th century, several newly described microorganisms were identifi ed as causes of the atypical pneumonia syndrome. In 1944, Eaton and colleagues 28 described a fi lterable agent from patients with pneumonia that could be transmitted to rodents. First thought to be a virus, the Eaton agent was eventually recognised as a mycoplasma and named M pneumoniae. 29 This organism is now regarded as the archetypal agent of atypical pneumonia. Although psittacosis (now known to be caused by Chlamydophila psittaci) was fi rst described in 1880 30 and was wellrecognised by the 1930s, 31-33 pneumonia caused by Chlamydophila pneumoniae was fi rst recognised much later. Originally referred to as the TWAR strain, C pneumoniae became recognised as a cause of pneumonia in the 1980s [34] [35] [36] [37] and was designated as a new species in 1989. 38 An outbreak of pneumonia among delegates to an American Legion convention in Philadelphia, PA, USA, in 1976 fi rst brought legionnaires' disease to the world's attention. 39, 40 Subsequently, Legionella spp were recognised as important causes of both sporadic and epidemic pneumonia around the world.

As time has gone on, emphasis has shifted away from the syndromic defi nition of atypical pneumonia to that of pneumonia caused by specifi c microorganisms (the atypical pneumonia pathogens or, simply, the atypicals). To further complicate matters, no clear defi nition exists of exactly which microorganisms are the so-called atypical pneumonia pathogens. Some lists are extensive, and include most non-pneumococcal pathogens associated with pneumonia, including respiratory viruses and agents of bioterrorism. [41] [42] [43] However, for many clinicians today, the atypical pneumonia pathogens comprise only M pneumoniae, Legionella spp, C pneumoniae, and, occasionally, C psittaci. More than any other pathogens, these organisms have become fi rmly linked to the concept of atypical pneumonia. A review of publications on PubMed from the past 10 years (January, 1999, to January, 2009) that have "atypical pneumonia" in their titles, abstracts, or both, showed that 90 (30%) of 302 focused specifi cally on severe acute respiratory syndrome Personal View (SARS), 79 of 302 (26%) used this term to refer to pneumonia caused by M pneumoniae, Legionella spp, and Chlamydophila spp only, and the remainder used the term in reference to a non-specifi c atypical pneumonia syndrome. An additional 187 articles over the same period referred to "atypical pathogens", usually in reference to M pneumoniae, Legionella spp, and Chlamydophila spp only.

Throughout its history, the use of the term atypical pneumonia has not been uniformly accepted and has even been actively discouraged by several authors. Even Reimann, 44-47 whose 1938 article popularised the adjective atypical, consistently substituted "viral" for "atypical" in subsequent years, because he believed the former was more accurate. J D Adamson and R E Beamish 48 in 1947 deplored reference to atypical pneumonia, and highlighted the protean nature of the syndrome. They also suggested how primary atypical pneumonia could be further divided into nine subclassifi cations: common cold pneumonitis, infl uenzal pneumonitis, contamination pneumonitis, exacerbation pneumonitis, atelectatic pneumonitis, allergic pneumonitis, pneumonitis due to known viruses and rickettsias, pneumonitis due to unknown viruses, and miscellaneous. In the early 1950s, S P Bedson 49 and Philip Robertson and Forgan Morle 50 emphasised the inconsistent clinical picture and diverse causes as reasons to discourage use of the term. The latter authors went as far as to state that they "wish to dispel much of the mysticism associated with this group of conditions and to destroy the concept of atypical pneumonia as at present described". 50 Unable to distinguish atypical from typical pneumonia on the basis of clinical or radiographic features in the late 1980s, Guo-Dong Fang and colleagues 51 believed that the usefulness of this classifi cation had been rendered obsolete, and recommended abandoning the term atypical pneumonia and focusing instead on the specifi c cause. More recently, George Sarosi 52 submitted in a monograph dedicated to this topic that atypical pneumonia "has no meaning in current medical practice and that we should get rid of it".

With the common aetiological defi nition of the term (ie, pneumonia caused by M pneumoniae, Legionella spp, or C pneumoniae), there is little reason to classify atypical pneumonia as unusual or abnormal. As such, the adjective atypical is inappropriate and inaccurate. M pneumoniae, Legionella spp, and C pneumoniae are not uncommon causes of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. The table shows the prevalence of infection with these bacteria from some recent studies of community-acquired pneumonia in adults from locations around the world. Even though comparison of the fi ndings of the studies is hampered by diff erences in entry criteria and diagnostic testing, infection with these organisms clearly represents a substantial burden of disease. This is even more evident when you consider that the causative organism was not identifi ed in 19-63% of patients in these studies. For many of these studies, the so-called atypical pathogens were the most common causes after S pneumoniae.

As diagnostics improve, we are likely to gain a better knowledge of the burden of the various pneumonia pathogens. With use of nucleic acid detection methods we now have a better appreciation of the importance of viruses in both adult and childhood pneumonia. 78 Respiratory viruses (panel), often thought of as causes of atypical pneumonia syndrome, can be detected in about one-third of adults 79 and in over a half of children [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] admitted with community-acquired pneumonia. The situation is complicated further by the common fi nding 79, 85, 86 and the abundance of evidence supporting an interaction between respiratory viruses and bacteria in the pathogenesis of pneumonia. 87 As a result, defi ning atypical pneumonia by type of pathogen alone is problematic.

Some epidemiological and clinical features are more strongly associated with specifi c causes of pneumonia. For example, mycoplasma pneumonia is commonly associated with young adults, headache, and epidemics. 88 However, there is substantial overlap of epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiographic features between pneumonia caused by the so-called atypical pathogens and pneumonia due to other microorganisms. [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] The similarities are more notable than the diff erences and have become increasingly evident over time, as we recognise that the features of each infection are broader than was once thought. Although some clinicians believe that pneumonia caused by the so-called atypical pathogens as a group can be reliably diff erentiated clinically from pneumonia caused by other microorganisms, largely by supposed characteristic patterns of extrapulmonary involvement with the former, 98,99 this view is an oversimplifi cation and is unsubstantiated. These claims need to be supported by evidence. The Japanese Respiratory Society has written guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia 100,101 that include a protocol for identifi cation of atypical pneumonia. The original algorithm incorporated nine diff erent variables that were refi ned in 2005 to six variables: patient older than 60 years, no or minor underlying diseases, persistent cough, limited chest auscultatory fi ndings, no sputum or no identifi ed causative organism by rapid diagnosis, and peripheral white-cell count of fewer than 10 000 cells per μL. 100 This protocol was designed to focus on the identifi cation of mycoplasma and chlamydia pneumonia, as there is a low incidence of documented legionella pneumonia in Japan. Therefore, the fi nding that the protocols are sensitive and reasonably specifi c for detecting mycoplasma pneumonia is unsurprising. 100, 101 The protocol performed poorly for mixed infections 101 and has not been assessed for the detection of legionnaires' disease. It would be more correct to refer to these as protocols for distinguishing mycoplasma pneumonia, rather than for atypical pneumonia.

The clinical diff erentiation of legionnaires' disease from other pneumonias has received particular attention given the disease's public health importance and the limitations of current diagnostic tests for legionellosis. 102 Although some presenting features might help with the recognition of legionnaires' disease, a reliable algorithm with adequate sensitivity and specifi city is hard to devise. 90,103 Cunha 99 devised a weighted point scale system for diagnosing legionnaires' disease at the Winthrop-University Hospital. Despite being widely promoted, the system has yet to be rigorously assessed in a prospective study. The only published assessment of the system 104 used case-control study methods to compare 37 patients with legionnaires' disease with 31 adults with bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia, and incorrectly attempted to estimate predictive values that cannot be calculated with this study design. The sensitivity was 78-87% for detecting legionella pneumonia, but the specifi city was only 50-65%. There are many problems with this type of study. The use of highly selected comparators (bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia in this situation), and the failure to account for pneumonia caused by several pathogens or no identifi able pathogen, makes it diffi cult to interpret these fi ndings in clinical practice.

As a minimum, any diagnostic algorithm for atypical pneumonia should be tested prospectively on an unselected sizeable population of adults with community-acquired pneumonia, although there will still be diffi culties interpreting results in view of the large proportion of patients (usually greater than 50%) for whom no pathogen can be identifi ed. A randomised trial comparing an algorithm with existing clinical practice would help to determine whether diff erences exist in clinical outcomes and antimicrobial use. Furthermore, the robustness of any algorithm should be tested in various diff erent geographical locations.

A substantial amount of recent published work on empirical antimicrobial therapy for community-acquired pneumonia has focused on "atypical coverage"-ie, the inclusion of antimicrobials (usually macrolides or fl uoroquinolones) with activity against M pneumoniae, C pneumoniae, and Legionella spp. [105] [106] [107] [108] These pathogens are all resistant to β-lactam antibiotics, the class of antibiotic most commonly used as empirical treatment for pneumonia, and the importance of atypical coverage features prominently in guidelines for the management of community-acquired pneumonia. [109] [110] [111] Whereas this term might serve as a reminder that some major Personal View pneumonia pathogens are resistant to β-lactams, this is hardly justifi cation for the continued use of an inaccurate term. Perhaps more importantly, reference to atypical coverage assumes that any perceived benefi t of this therapy is because of treatment of atypical pathogens, despite the lack of microbiological evidence to support this concept. This obscures the fact that benefi ts might result from the antibiotics themselves rather than the involvement of specifi c pneumonia pathogens. 112, 113 Recent data from a mouse study suggest that improved outcomes for pneumonia treated with protein synthesis inhibitors over pneumonia treated with β-lactams might be related to suppression of the infl ammatory response. 114 The problems in the use of the adjective atypical are illustrated by the various guidelines on management of community-acquired pneumonia published in Europe and North America. [109] [110] [111] There is general agreement that the term "atypical pneumonia" has outgrown its historical usefulness and its use is not recommended because "it implies, incorrectly, a distinctive clinical pattern". 110 However, the term "atypical pathogens" is retained by the British Thoracic Society for infections caused by M pneumoniae, C pneumoniae, C psittaci, and Coxiella burnetii, but not Legionella spp or viruses, since those included are "diffi cult to diagnose early in the illness and are sensitive to antibiotics other than β-lactams such as macrolides, tetracyclines, or fl uoroquinolones". 110 The European guidelines seem to use the term "atypical pathogens" to include Mycoplasma spp, Chlamydia spp, Legionella spp, and Bordetella pertussis, 111 and The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)-American Thoracic Society (ATS) guideline uses the term for organisms that are "not detectable on Gram stain or cultivatable on standard bacteriological media, including M pneumoniae, C pneumoniae, Legionella spp, and respiratory viruses", and then expands on the nature of the relevant respiratory viruses. 109 The problems of defi nition reappear in treatment sections of guidelines. For example, the IDSA-ATS guidelines refer to macrolides as treatment for atypical organisms, but this class of antibiotic obviously has no activity against viruses. Nevertheless, the British Thoracic Society guidelines conclude that the term "atypical pathogens" remains useful to clinicians in guiding discussion about infectious cause and management of communityacquired pneumonia. 110 As a consequence the adjective atypical, for which there is no agreed defi nition, is retained and remains linked to pneumonia by association tending to perpetuate the notion of atypical pneumonia.

As most commonly used today, atypical pneumonia is a tired, inaccurate, and confusing term. Should we abolish the term altogether as some have suggested? We believe that the original description of atypical pneumonia as an unusual entity is potentially helpful and has clear meaning and purpose. Therefore, we should restrict its use to describe pneumonia that is truly out of the ordinary in clinical presentation and epidemiology. The recognition of new and unusual forms of pneumonia can have immense public health importance, and recent history provides many such examples. The outbreak of pneumonia at the Legionnaires' convention in Philadelphia in 1976 could rightly be described as atypical at the time. 39 The cluster of cases of pneumocystis pneumonia in San Francisco, USA, in 1981 was a key event in the recognition of HIV infection and, once recognised, became a sentinel diagnosis for AIDS. 115, 116 The rapid response to the SARS outbreak in 2003 followed the early recognition of an unusual respiratory disease; 117-119 SARS is an excellent recent example of a genuine atypical pneumonia. In each case the recognition of an atypical type of pneumonia by clinicians led to important discoveries, intensive eff orts to determine the pathogen, and public health responses.

We should stop referring to M pneumoniae, C pneumoniae, and Legionella spp as atypical pathogens. These are common pneumonia pathogens that have their own characteristic features, and we should cease trying to convince ourselves that unrelated pathogens cause a unifi ed and distinct pneumonia syndrome. We should recognise that the term atypical pathogen has provided a useful shorthand for a diagnostic approach based on Gram stains and culture on agar plates, but this does not justify its continued use when diagnostic techniques have moved beyond these methods. The term might seem useful to clinicians for discussions on treatment and cause, but, because no agreement exists on a defi nition of the causative organism, this use will cause ongoing confusion. Writers of textbooks and reviews should abandon the current popular use of atypical pneumonia, which is largely still included through tradition only and refrain from using the term atypical pathogens as it lacks defi nition. Appropriate use would avoid some of the current confusion and misconceptions around a potentially useful term.

DRM conceived the idea and wrote the fi rst draft. DRM and STC contributed to the writing and revision of the paper. Both authors have seen and approved the fi nal version.

We declare that we have no confl icts of interest. 

The bacteriology of sputum in common non-tuberculous infections of the upper and lower respiratory tracts, with special reference to lobar and broncho-pneumonia

The Lumleian lectures on some moot points in the pathology and clinical history of pneumonia

Notes on four cases of fulminating pneumonia from a public institution

The question of "infl uenza" and atypical pneumonia

Variation and type specifi city in the bacterial species Hemophilus infl uenzae

Disseminated focal pneumonia

Prevalence of pneumonia

Three cases of psittacosis with two deaths

A note on psittacosis: with reports of two related cases

Studies on primary atypical pneumonia, I: clinical features and results of laboratory investigations

Commission on Acute Respiratory Diseases. Epidemiology of atypical pneumonia and acute respiratory disease at Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Primary atypical pneumonia

Observation of an epidemic of primary atypical pneumonia in the United States Army in Australia

Primary atypical pneumonia: an epidemic associated with malaria

Primary atypical pneumonia of unknown etiology

Eaton agent-science and scientifi c acceptance: a historical commentary

Epidemic of acute respiratory disease associated with atypical pneumonia

Primary atypical pneumonia: an analysis of one hundred twenty-three cases; report of one fatality; review of fourteen cases treated with aureomycin

Studies on the etiology of primary atypical pneumonia: a fi lterable agent transmissible to cotton rats, hamsters, and chick embryos

Mycoplasma pneumoniae: proposed nomenclature for atypical pneumonia organism (Eaton agent)

Contribution to the question of pneumotyphus": a discussion of the original article by J Ritter in 1880

The clinical picture of psittacosis

The etiology of the disease psittacosis

Psittacosis: a further account of cases of human infection

A new Chlamydia psittaci strain, TWAR, isolated in acute respiratory tract infections

Identifi cation of a new group of Chlamydia psittaci strains called TWAR

Pneumonia associated with the TWAR strain of Chlamydia

An epidemic of mild pneumonia due to an unusual strain of Chlamydia psittaci

Chlamydia pneumoniae sp nov for Chlamydia sp strain TWAR

Legionnaires' disease: description of an epidemic of pneumonia

Legionnaires' disease: isolation of a bacterium and demonstration of its role in other respiratory disease

Atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia

Molecular diagnostics of atypical pneumonia

The other causes of "atypical" pneumonia

The viral pneumonias and pneumonias of probable viral origin

Pneumococcal and "virus" pneumonia

Viral pneumonias

Viral pneumonias

Clinical diff erentiation in the syndrome called atypical pneumonia

Primary atypical pneumonia

An explanation of the "primary atypical pneumonia" syndrome

New and emerging etiologies for community-acquired pneumonia with implications for therapya prospective multicenter study of 359 cases

Atypical pneumonia'-why this term may be better left unsaid

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization in Japan

Community-acquired pneumonia in southeast Asia-the microbial diff erences between ambulatory and hospitalized patients

Atypical pathogens in adult patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia in Korea

Prevalence and clinical presentations of atypical pathogens infection in community-acquired pneumonia in Thailand

An Asian study on the prevalence of atypical respiratory pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia

Etiology of community acquired pneumonia among adult patients requiring hospitalization in Taiwan

Atypical pathogens as etiologic agents in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia in Korea: a prospective multi-center study

Epidemiology and clinical outcomes of community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients in Asian countries: a prospective study by the Asian network for surveillance of resistant pathogens

Etiology of communityacquired pneumonia-a prospective-study among adults requiring admission to hospital

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia: impact of age, comorbidity, and severity

Prospective epidemiologic survey of patients with community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization in Switzerland

Study of community acquired pneumonia aetiology (SCAPA) in adults admitted to hospital: implications for management guidelines

Epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients at the dawn of the 21st century: a prospective study on the Mediterranean coast of Spain

Incidence of community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalizationresults of a population-based active surveillance study in Ohio

Ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia: the frequency of atypical agents and clinical course

Community-acquired pneumonia: etiology, epidemiology, and outcome at a teaching hospital in Argentina

Etiología y factores pronósticos de la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad en la adulto hospitalizado

Etiology of communityacquired pneumonia in hospitalized patients in Chile: the increasing prevalence of respiratory viruses among classic pathogens

Atypical bacteria are a common-cause of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized adults

Aetiology, outcome, and risk factors for mortality among adults with acute pneumonia in Kenya

Community acquired pneumonia: aetiology and usefulness of severity criteria on admission

Community-acquired pneumonia in Christchurch and Waikato 1999-2000: microbiology and epidemiology

The etiology of communityacquired pneumonia in Australia: why penicillin plus doxycycline or a macrolide is the most appropriate therapy

A worldwide perspective of atypical pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia

Molecular genetic methods in the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections

Incidence and characteristics of viral community-acquired pneumonia in adults

Viruses in community-acquired pneumonia in children aged less than 3 years old: high rate of viral coinfection

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia in 254 hospitalized children

Induced sputum in the diagnosis of childhood community-acquired pneumonia

The role of respiratory viral infections among children hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia in a developing country

Etiology of communityacquired pneumonia in hospitalized school-age children: evidence for high prevalence of viral infections

Viral community-acquired pneumonia in nonimmunocompromised adults

The role of viruses in the aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia in adults

Insights into the interaction between infl uenza virus and pneumococcus

Clinical overview of typical Mycoplasma pneumoniae infections

Prediction of microbial etiology at admission to hospital for pneumonia from the presenting clinical features

Clinical diagnosis of Legionella pneumonia revisited: evaluation of the community-based pneumonia incidence study group scoring system

Pneumonia due to Legionella pneumophila and pneumococcal pneumonia: similarities and diff erences on presentation

The value of clinical features in diff erentiating between viral, pneumococcal and atypical bacterial pneumonia in children

Comparative radiographic features of communityacquired legionnaires' disease, pneumococcal pneumonia, mycoplasma pneumonia, and psittacosis

Clinical characterisation of pneumonia caused by atypical pathogens combining classic and novel predictors

Clinical presentation of community-acquired Chlamydia pneumoniae pneumonia in adults

Comparative study of the clinical presentation of legionella pneumonia and other community-acquired pneumonias

Comparative clinical and laboratory features of legionella with pneumococcal and mycoplasma pneumonias

The atypical pneumonias: clinical diagnosis and importance

Atypical pneumonias: current clinical concepts focusing on legionnaires' disease

Clinical diff erentiation of atypical pneumonia using Japanese guidelines

Is it possible to distinguish between atypical pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia?: evaluation of the guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia in Japan

Diagnosis of legionella infection

Can legionnaires disease be diagnosed by clinical criteria? A critical review

Evaluation of the Winthrop-University Hospital criteria to identify legionella pneumonia

Antibacterial class is not obviously important in outpatient pneumonia: a meta-analysis

Eff ectiveness of β lactam antibiotics compared with antibiotics active against atypical pathogens in non-severe community acquired pneumonia: meta-analysis

Empirical atypical coverage for inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Is activity against "atypical" pathogens necessary in the treatment protocols for community-acquired pneumonia? Issues with combination therapy

Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults

BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults

Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections

Lower mortality among patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with a macrolide plus a beta-lactam agent versus a beta-lactam agent alone

Addition of a macrolide to a β-lactam-based empirical antibiotic regimen is associated with lower in-hospital mortality for patients with bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia

Treatment with protein synthesis inhibitors improves outcomes of secondary bacterial pneumonia after infl uenza

Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and mucosal candidiasis in previously healthy homosexual men: evidence of a new acquired cellular immunodefi ciency

An outbreak of community-acquired Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: initial manifestation of cellular immune dysfunction

A cluster of cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong

A major outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong

Identifi cation of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada