SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been re-introduced for treating patients with severe diffuse emphysema.
objectivesTo assemble evidence from randomised controlled trials for the effectiveness of LVRS, and identify optimal surgical techniques, those patients who benefit most and those for whom it should be avoided. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised controlled trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group COPD register using the terms: emphysema AND (emphysema surgery OR lung volume reduction surgery OR LVRS OR volume reduction surgery OR pneumectomy OR reduction pneumoplasty OR lung reduction surgery). The Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register was also searched using these terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that studied the safety and efficacy of LVRS in patients with diffuse emphysema were included. Studies were excluded if they investigated giant or bullous emphysema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. MAIN
resultsOnly one randomised trial of LVRS for diffuse emphysema was identified. This compared stapled unilateral thoracoscopic lung reduction coupled with bovine pericardium reinforcement with a unilateral neodymium:yttrium aluminium garnet laser contact reduction. A total of 72 patients were studied. Both arms included post-operative rehabilitation and appeared to be well matched at randomisation. Improvement in FEV1 & FVC at six months was significantly greater in the staple treated group (p < 0.01 & p < 0. 07 respectively), but absolute increases were small. Need for supplemental oxygen was reduced significantly more in the staple treated group; Peto Odds Ratio (OR) 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40, 11.71. Quality of life improved more in the staple treated group (OR 5.36; 95% CI 2.13,13.47). The rate of delayed pneumothorax in the laser treated group was significantly higher (OR 10.46; 95% CI 1.98, 55.30). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is no randomised controlled trial evidence concerning the efficacy of LVRS for diffuse emphysema compared to optimal conservative medical therapy. Stapling is more effective than laser resection and has a lower complication rate. LVRS should not be applied routinely until results of large trials currently underway become available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.