SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014
Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Current practice and attitudes in emergency department management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in Australia and New Zealand: a scenario-based/survey.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Conservative management of spontaneous pneumothorax: A review of evidence and guidelines.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Review
- Factors Associated with Duration of Intercostal Chest Drainage in Patients with Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax and the Role of Pulmonary Rehabilitation.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2021Article
- Comments on therapy option for primary spontaneous pneumothorax.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- ConservativeBreathe (Sheffield, England) · 2020Article
- A need to reconsider guidelines on management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax?International journal of emergency medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary spontaneous pneumothorax is widely managed according to size with interventional techniques based on practice guidelines. Interventional management is not without complications and observational data suggest conservative management works. The current guidelines are based on expert consensus rather than evidence, and a systematic review may help in identifying evidence for this practice.
objectivesThe objective of the review is to compare conservative and interventional treatments of adult primary spontaneous pneumothorax for outcomes of clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1920 to 26th June 2014); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1947 to 26th June 2014); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1980 to 26th June 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1945 to 26th June 2014). We searched ongoing trials via the relevant databases and contacted authors. We also searched the 'grey literature'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and we accepted quasi-RCTs if a systematic method of allocation was used. Participants were limited to adults aged 18 to 50 years, with their first symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax with radiological evidence and no underlying lung disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of five authors independently reviewed all studies in the search criteria and made inclusions and exclusions according to the selection criteria. No statistical methods were necessary as there were no included trials. MAIN
resultsWe identified 358 studies with duplicates removed. There were three potentially relevant studies that we excluded as they were not randomized controlled trials. There was one ongoing trial that was relevant and we contacted the authors and confirmed the study is ongoing at June 2014. We will update this review when this ongoing study is completed. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere are no completed randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults. There is a lack of high-quality evidence for current guidelines in management and a need for randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for this condition.
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.