ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Comparison of closed-chest drainage with rib resection closed drainage for treatment of chronic tuberculous empyema.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successful Treatment of Critically Severe Empyema With Bronchopleural Fistula via ECMO: A Case Report.Respirology case reports · 2025Article
- Risk factors for tuberculous empyema in pleural tuberculosis patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of closed-chest drainage with rib resection closed drainage of chronic tuberculous empyema.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed 86 patients with tuberculous empyema in Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from August 2010 to November 2015. Among these included patients, 22 patients received closed-chest drainage, and 64 patients received rib resection closed drainage.
resultsThe results showed that after intercostal chest closed drain treatment, 2 (9.09%) patients were recovery, 13 (59.09%) patients had significantly curative effect, 6 (27.27%) patients had partly curative effect, and 1 (4.55%) patient had negative effect. After treatment of rib resection closed drainage, 9 (14.06%) patients were successfully recovery, 31 (48.44%) patients had significantly curative effect, 19 (29.69%) patients had partly curative effect, and 5 (7.81%) patients had negative effect. There was no significant difference in the curative effect (P>0.05), while the average catheterization time of rib resection closed drainage (130.05±13.12 days) was significant longer than that (126.14±36.84 days) in course of intercostal chest closed drain (P<0.05).
conclusionsThis study had demonstrated that closed-chest drainage was an effective procedure for treating empyema in young patients. It was less invasive than rib resection closed drainage and was associated with less severe pain. We advocated closed-chest drainage for the majority of young patients with empyema, except for those with other diseases.
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.