SynthesisLung2017
Early Trends in Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Efficacy Parameters.
Synthesis in Lung, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Stent, Valves, Vapour ablation, Coils and Sealant Therapies in Advanced Emphysema: A Meta-Analysis.Turkish thoracic journal · 2019Review
- Efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction therapy in patients with severe emphysema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Oncotarget · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe goal of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the therapeutic effectiveness of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR), and to compare it with medical management and lung volume reduction surgery.
methodsVariables of interest were absolute change in FEV1, 6MWT, and SGRQ. Meta-analysis was performed for the BLVR modalities with ≥3 trials. Of the 18 shortlisted publications, only valves (four trials; n = 159) and coils (six trials; n = 194) qualified for meta-analysis. To avoid redundant reporting for valves, only the data for intact fissure subjects were analyzed. Outcome data are presented as the mean difference from baseline with 95% confidence interval at 6-months follow-up.
resultsFor BLVR using valves, the pooled mean difference (PMD) for FEV1 was 0.146 L (95% CI 0.111-0.181; p < 0.001), 6MWT was 45.225 meters (95% CI 26.954-63.495; p < 0.001), and SGRQ was -8.825 points (95% CI -14.824 to -2.825; p = 0.004). All the PMDs were statistically significant and higher than their respective minimal clinically important difference (MCID). For BLVR using coils, the PMD for FEV1 was 0.080 L (95% CI 0.057-0.104; p < 0.001), 6MWT was 45.320 meters (95% CI 28.040-62.600; p < 0.001), and SGRQ was -10.570 points (95% CI -13.299 to -7.841; p < 0.001). All three variables showed statistically significant PMDs but that for FEV1 was smaller than the MCID. Data from BLVR modalities with <3 major publications are reviewed in the discussion section.
conclusionsBLVR offers early promise in the palliation of advanced emphysema. Better characterization of patients to identify phenotypes that will derive sustained benefit is needed.
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.