ArticleThe Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2020
Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Portable Small-Bore Chest Tube (Thoracic Egg Catheter) in Spontaneous Pneumothorax.
Article in The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conservative management of spontaneous pneumothorax: A review of evidence and guidelines.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary spontaneous pneumothorax is commonly treated with chest tube insertion, which requires hospitalization. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy, costs, and benefits of a portable small-bore chest tube (Thoracic Egg; Sumitomo Bakelite Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) compared with a conventional chest tube.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed all primary spontaneous pneumothorax patients who underwent treatment at Gangnam Severance Hospital between August 2014 and May 2018.
resultsA total of 279 patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional group (n=236) and the Thoracic Egg group (n=43). Of the 236 patients in the conventional group, 100 were excluded because they underwent surgery during the study period. The efficacy and cost were compared between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding recurrence (conventional group, 36 patients [26.5%]; Thoracic Egg group, 15 patients [29.4%]; p=0.287). However, the Egg group had statistically significantly lower mean medical expenses than the conventional group (433,413 Korean won and 522,146 Korean won, respectively; p<0.001).
conclusionAlthough portable small-bore chest tubes may not be significantly more efficacious than conventional chest tubes, their use is significantly less expensive. We believe that the Thoracic Egg catheter could be a less costly alternative to conventional chest tube insertion.
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.