In the diagnosis of pulmonary TB, sputum induction has been shown to have a better diagnostic yield than spontaneous sputum and gastric aspirates. Sputum induction fell into disuse, though, with the advent of fiberoptic bronchoscopy, which has become the primary method in many institutions. However, several studies2–3 have demonstrated that the diagnostic yield of one induced sputum is at least equivalent to that of one bronchoscopy with BAL, both in terms of acid-fast smear and mycobacterial culture. The diagnostic yield of induced sputa is further increased when multiple (three or more) specimens are obtained, with reported detection rates by smear of 91 to 98% and by culture of 99 to 100%,4significantly higher than with bronchoscopy alone.5 Induced sputum is a very well-tolerated procedure, with extremely low rates of adverse events (most commonly, headache, and bronchospasm/cough). Bronchoscopy has the inherent risks of an invasive procedure requiring a sedative. Both procedures must be performed in an airborne infection isolation room with respiratory protective equipment to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission. Cost analysis studies2,5 also favor sputum induction over bronchoscopy.