ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2014
Serial characterisation of monocyte and neutrophil function after lung resection.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune capacity determines outcome following surgery or trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020Pooled it
- Usefulness of combining clinical and biochemical parameters for prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications after lung resection surgery.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2019Trial
- Review
- The role of phagocytic leukocytes following flexible ureterenoscopy, for the treatment of kidney stones: an observational, clinical pilots-study.European journal of medical research · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary aim of this prospective study was to perform a comprehensive serial characterisation of monocyte and neutrophil function, circulating monocyte subsets, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid after lung resection. A secondary aim was to perform a pilot, hypothesis-generating evaluation of whether innate immune parameters were associated with postoperative pneumonia.
methodsForty patients undergoing lung resection were studied in detail. Blood monocytes and neutrophils were isolated preoperatively and at 6, 24 and 48 h postoperatively. BAL was performed preoperatively and immediately postoperatively. Monocyte subsets, monocyte responsiveness to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and neutrophil phagocytic capacity were quantified at all time points. Differential cell count, protein and cytokine concentrations were measured in BAL. Pneumonia evaluation at 72 h was assessed using predefined criteria.
resultsAfter surgery, circulating subsets of classical and intermediate monocytes increased significantly. LPS-induced release of proinflammatory cytokines from monocytes increased significantly and by 48 h a more proinflammatory profile was found. Neutrophil phagocytosis demonstrated a small but significant fall. Factors associated with postoperative pneumonia were: increased release of specific proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines from monocytes; preoperative neutrophilia; and preoperative BAL cell count.
conclusionsWe conclude that postoperative lung inflammation is associated with specific changes in the cellular innate immune response, a better understanding of which may improve patient selection and prediction of complications in the future.
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.