Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28404647›Full record

Trial reportThe European respiratory journal2017

Randomised comparison of needle aspiration and chest tube drainage in spontaneous pneumothorax.

A Thelle, M Gjerdevik, M SueChu, O M Hagen, P Bakke

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European respiratory journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03293199 (Randomized Controlled Trial on Comparison of Chest Tube Drainage and Needle Aspiration in Treatment of Spontaneous Pneumothorax), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT03293199 naunknown statusnot on this map

Randomized Controlled Trial on Comparison of Chest Tube Drainage and Needle Aspiration in Treatment of Spontaneous Pneumothorax

TypeinterventionalSponsorTabriz University of Medical SciencesRan2017 to 2018Enrolled70ConditionsPneumothorax Spontaneous Primary, Pneumothorax, Recurrent, Pneumothorax Spontaneous Tension, Pneumothorax, SpontaneousArmsChest tube drainage, Repetitive needle aspiration
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. New strategies in the management of pneumothorax.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. New insights into spontaneous pneumothorax: A review.African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A ThelleDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway andreas.thelle@helse-bergen.no.ORCID 0000-0002-8824-3132
M GjerdevikDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Norway.
M SueChuDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
O M HagenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
P BakkeDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Norway.
Haukeland University Hospital · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guidelines on spontaneous pneumothorax are contradictory as to intervention between needle aspiration (NA) and chest tube drainage (CTD). Studies show poor adherence to guidelines.Three Norwegian hospitals included patients with primary (PSP) and secondary (SSP) spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients underwent NA or CTD as the primary intervention. The main outcome was duration of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were immediate- and 1-week success rates and complications.127 patients were included, including 48 patients with SSP. 65 patients underwent NA, 63 patients CTD. Median (interquartile range) hospital stay was significantly shorter for NA: 2.4 days (1.2-4.7 days), compared with CTD: 4.6 days (2.3-7.8 days) (p<0.001). The corresponding figures for the SSP subgroup were 2.54 days (1.17-7.79 days) compared with 5.53 days (3.65-9.21 days) (p=0.049) for NA and CTD, respectively. Immediate success rates were 69% for NA compared with 32% for CTD (p<0.001). The positive effect of NA remained significant in sub-analyses for SSP. There was no significant difference in 1-week success rates. Complications occurred only during the CTD-treatment.Our study shows shorter hospital stay and higher immediate success rates for NA compared with CTD. Subgroup analyses also show clear benefits for NA for both PSP and SSP.

Indexed as

DrainageAdultChest TubesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeedlesNorwayPneumothoraxPostoperative ComplicationsSuctionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28404647
OpenAlexW2556109573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.