Table 7

BAL cell counts in different subgroups of IIP in other studies*
Subgroup Author n lympho. macroph. neutroph. eosinoph.
UIP/IPF Our study 22** 18.0% 64% 10% 7.5%
Haslam 1980 [54] 18 3.8% 62.7% 9.8% 4.9%
Costabel 1992 [30] 22 15% 61% 19% 5%
Matuso 1996 [24] 30 19.4% 73.1% 4.7% 2.8%
Shindoh 1986 [55] 20 22.5% 67.9% 7% 2.1%
Daniil 1999 [25] 8 8.4% 76.8% 9.6% 5.8%
Nagai 1998 [19] 64 7.2% 83% 5.9% 3.3%
RBILD Our study 5** 14% 77% 6.8% 2%
Myers 1987 [26] 3 2.3% 95.7% 2% n.d.
NSIP Our study 14** 36% 45.3% 13.3% 5%
Katzenstein 1994 [33] n.d. 37.3% 47.4% 8% 5.5%
Park 1996 [34] 7 36.5% 34.4% 23.6% 4.8%
Daniil 1999 [25] 8 9.3% 79.3% 7.8% 3.2%
COP Our study 9** 40% 46% 8% 5.7%
Nagai 1996 [56] 16 44.4% 45.5% 6.4% 2.2%
Costabel 1992 [30] 10 44% 39% 10% 6%
Epler 1994 [48] 12 41% 51% 4% 3%

*mast cells are not mentioned in all studies, therefore total numbers (percentage) do not reach 100% in each study. **results were not available in all cases.

Theegarten et al.

Theegarten et al. Diagnostic Pathology 2012 7:160   doi:10.1186/1746-1596-7-160

Open Data