SynthesisMedicine2018
The safety and efficacy of endobronchialvalve therapy in patients with advanced heterogeneous emphysema versus standard medical care: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial valves had been utilized for many years to treat patients with advanced emphysema, despite unfavorable results. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of endobronchial valves in patients with heterogeneous advanced emphysema.
methodsWe performed systematic database searches to identify clinical trials that met all our inclusion criteria. Direct-comparison and mixed-treatment-comparison (MTC) meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the mean difference or odds ratio of outcomes. Each outcome was analyzed with Review Manager 5 statistical software.
resultsEight prospective clinical trials assessing this therapy were retrieved, with a total of 744 patients. Outcomes, including the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), were analyzed, and the odds ratio of reported complications related to endobronchial valve therapy was calculated. Significant improvement in the mean difference of FEV1 (5.61 [4.42, 6.80]), 6MWT (25.75 [12.30, 39.20]), and SGRQ (-10.96 [-13.88, -8.05]) was observed after endobronchial valve treatment. Moreover, the rate of adverse events related to endobronchial valves was low.
conclusionsEndobronchial valve treatment offers benefits in terms of lung function and quality of life. Endobronchial valve treatment is feasible and safe for patients with advanced heterogeneous emphysema, especially those with no evidence of collateral ventilation.
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.