Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31092513›Full record

ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2019

Interpreting pleural fluid results .

Rachel M Mercer, John P Corcoran, Jose M Porcel, Najib M Rahman, Ioannis Psallidas

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. A rare case of infected urinothorax.Respiratory medicine case reports · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rachel M MercerUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK rachel.mercer@nhs.net.
John P CorcoranUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
Jose M PorcelArnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Lleida, Spain.
Najib M RahmanUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK.
Ioannis PsallidasUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBHospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova · ESUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interpreting pleural fluid results correctly requires an awareness of the possible aetiologies of a pleural effusion and an understanding of the reliability of the outcome of each investigation. All results must be interpreted within each different clinical context and knowledge of the pitfalls for each test is necessary when the diagnosis is unclear. This review aims to discuss the common aetiologies of a pleural effusion and some of the pitfalls in interpretation that can occur when the diagnosis is unclear.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansPleural DiseasesPleural EffusionBiomarkersbiomarkersmalignant pleural effusionPleural effusionpleural infection

Identifiers

PMID31092513
PMCPMC6542220
OpenAlexW2946189866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.