Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27246596›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2016

Malignant pleural effusion: from bench to bedside.

Ioannis Psallidas, Ioannis Kalomenidis, Jose M Porcel, Bruce W Robinson, Georgios T Stathopoulos

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04039126 (Comparison of the Effectiveness of Povidone-Iodine Alone to Povidone-Iodine-Tetracycline Combination for Chemical Pleurodesis in Malignant Pleural Effusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 148 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04039126 phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Povidone-Iodine Alone to Povidone-Iodine-Tetracycline Combination for Chemical Pleurodesis in Malignant Pleural Effusion

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College Hospital, IbadanRan2019 to 2021Enrolled62ConditionsMalignant Pleural EffusionArmsCHEMICAL PLEURODESIS WITH POVIDONE-IODINE-TETRACYCLINE COMBINATION, CHEMICAL PLEURODESIS WITH POVIDONE-IODINE ALONE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

148 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 278 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Talc slurry versus thoracoscopic talc insufflation for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparison of LENT, PROMISE, and RECLS scores in malignant pleural effusions.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  14. Affordable use of indwelling pleural catheters for malignant pleural effusion.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Ioannis PsallidasOxford Respiratory Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Respiratory Medicine, Oxford University Hospitals Trust, Oxford, UK ioannis.psallidas@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
Ioannis Kalomenidis1st Dept of Critical Care and Pulmonary Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Jose M PorcelPleural Medicine Unit, Dept of Internal Medicine, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
Bruce W RobinsonNational Centre for Asbestos Related Disease, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia.
Georgios T StathopoulosLaboratory for Molecular Respiratory Carcinogenesis, Dept of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Patras, Achaia, Greece Comprehensive Pneumology Center (CPC), University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians University and Helmholtz Zentrum München, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany.
Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova · ESNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GROxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSir Charles Gairdner Hospital · AUUniversity of Patras · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is a common but serious condition that is related with poor quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Its incidence and associated healthcare costs are rising and its management remains palliative, with median survival ranging from 3 to 12 months. During the last decade there has been significant progress in unravelling the pathophysiology of MPE, as well as its diagnostics, imaging, and management. Nowadays, formerly bed-ridden patients are genotyped, phenotyped, and treated on an ambulatory basis. This article attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of current advances in MPE from bench to bedside. In addition, it highlights unanswered questions in current clinical practice and suggests future directions for basic and clinical research in the field.

Indexed as

Pleural Effusion, MalignantAnimalsBiomarkersHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRisk FactorsThoracoscopyBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID27246596
PMCPMC9487241
OpenAlexW2415138112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.