ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2017
A need to reconsider guidelines on management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax?
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statewide Variation in Practices and Charges for Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Maryland, United States: A Retrospective Study.Journal of chest surgery · 2025Article
- Thoracic Surgeons' Perspective on the Management of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax.Thoracic research and practice · 2023Article
- Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax: a time to re-evaluate management.Respirology case reports · 2021Article
- An evidence-based review of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in the adolescent population.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Review
- Serious Games in Surgical Medical Education: A Virtual Emergency Department as a Tool for Teaching Clinical Reasoning to Medical Students.JMIR serious games · 2019Article
- How spontaneous pneumothorax is managed in emergency departments: a French multicentre descriptive study.BMC emergency medicine · 2019Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe key guidelines in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) include the 2010 British Thoracic Society (BTS) Pleural Disease guideline and 2001 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Consensus Statement. Current recommendations are dependent on radiographic measures which differ between these two guidelines. The aim of this study is to compare size classification of PSP cases, according to BTS and ACCP guidelines, and to evaluate guideline compliance.
findingsWe conducted a retrospective evaluation of all PSP episodes presenting to St Thomas' Hospital, London, between February 2013 and December 2014. Data was recorded from review of chest X-rays and patient records. Eighty-seven episodes of PSP in 72 patients were identified (median age 25 years, IQR 22-32.25). Classification of "large" and "small" showed the greatest disparity in those managed conservatively (12/27, 44%) or with aspiration only (11/23, 48%). In this UK study, BTS guidelines were followed in 70% of episodes with adherence to ACCP guidelines in 32% of episodes.
conclusionsThere is a poor agreement in size classification between BTS and ACCP guidelines, resulting in conflicting recommendations for management of PSP. Robust clinical trial evidence is required to achieve international consensus on the management of PSP.
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.