Evidence Hub

A case-control study on Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia and legionella pneumonia

Gao Y, Lin YJ, Zhang WL, Ni JM, Han SG, Bao L

Frontiers in medicine, 2025

84 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Purpose Atypical pathogens (Chlamydia psittaci and Legionella) are often detected by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS). However, the two atypical pneumonias are difficult to distinguish. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the two types of atypical pneumonia and use statistics to find points of differentiation for early diagnosis and timely treatment. Methods This retrospective study included all confirmed cases of two types of atypical pneumonia in our institution. The data collected and analyzed included epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological features. Results The study included 84 patients, 63 with Chlamydia psittaci (C. psittaci) pneumonia, 21 with Legionella pneumonia. (1) Up to 61.9% of patients with C. psittaci pneumonia and Legionella pneumonia had high fevers. More than 90% of patients with Legionella pneumonia had a cough score ≥ 3. Legionella pneumonia patients experienced more severe coughing, chest tightness and shortness of breath symptoms than C. psittaci pneumonia patients (both, p < 0.01). (2) Consolidation, bronchial insufflation, ground-glass opacities, and pleural effusion are the most common chest CT signs of C. psittaci pneumonia and Legionella pneumonia. Legionella pneumonia was more likely to cause ground-glass opacities in the upper left lobe than C. psittaci pneumonia (p = 0.05). There was no statistical difference in other CT findings. (3) C. psittaci pneumonia and Legionella pneumonia were identified…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case-control, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 84 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free