ArticleActa informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH2018
Comparison of Efficiency of Pleurodesis Between Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) and Standard Thoracostomy.
Article in Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Talc slurry versus thoracoscopic talc insufflation for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety profile of autologous blood versus talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion: a randomized controlled trial.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseTrial
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemical pleurodesis is generally accepted palliative dyspnea therapy and preventive of re-accumulation of pleural fluid in patients with malignant pleural effusions.
aimComparative analyses of efficiency of chemical pleurodesis between Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) and standard thoracostomy.
methodsFrom 01.01.2016-01.01.2017 at the Clinic for Thoracic Surgery of University Clinical Center (UCC) Sarajevo retrospective analysis was performed. Studied patients underwent VATS pleurodesis (G1) and standard thoracostomy pleurodesis (G2), with 60 in each group, respecting defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pleurodesis success was examined radiologically over the next three months.
resultsAverage age of all patients was 63.97±8.75 years. Gender related, 45% were men and 55% were women (F/M=1.47:1). Average hospitalization was 7.22±1.37 (G1: 6.68±1.16; G2: 7.44±1.40; Mann-Whitney U-test: p=0.0016) days. Average thoracic drainage duration was 5.45±1.69, (G1: 4.28±1.15,G2: 6.05±1.58; Mann-Whitney U-test p<0.0001) days. Pleurodesis success after first month was 98.30% in G1, 91.60% in G2 (G1 vs. G2; p=0.2089); after second month was 98.30% in G1, 78.30% in G2 (G1 vs. G2; p=0.0011) and after three months was 91.60% in G1, 63.30% in G2(G1 vs. G2; p=0.0006). Average dyspnea degree (0-5) after the pleurodesis was 0.050±0.22 in G1 and 0.62±0.76 in G2 (Mann-Whitney U-test; p=0.0001). Complication were noticed in 9.2% patients, in G1 3.3%, 15.0% in G2.
conclusionDifference in pleurodesis efficiency between the G1 and G2 was established after second month and was even more evident after third month in favor of G1. Results show the significant statistical improvement of the degree of dyspnea in G1 as opposite to the G2.
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.