Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020
Thoracoscopy and talc poudrage compared with intercostal drainage and talc slurry infusion to manage malignant pleural effusion: the TAPPS RCT.
Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- WABIP/AABIP statement on therapeutic indications of medical thoracoscopy for benign pleural disease.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Updates in the management of malignant pleural effusion: a clinical practice review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Pleural fluid biomarkers to predict response to pleurodesis or indwelling pleural catheter for malignant pleural effusion: still a long way to go.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- New strategies in the management of pneumothorax.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Review
- Assessment of Tetracycline Pleurodesis in Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
- A patient-centred approach to malignant pleural effusion.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025Review
- Exploring the efficacy and advancements of medical pleurodesis: a comprehensive review of current research.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- Comparison of outcomes of surgical and other invasive treatment modalities for malignant pleural effusion in patients with pleural carcinomatosis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Current status of and progress in the treatment of malignant pleural effusion of lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Management of Pleural Effusion Secondary to Malignant Mesothelioma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Malignant Pleural Effusion: Does the Indwelling Pleural Catheter Still Have Something to Say?Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are around 40,000 new cases of malignant pleural effusion in the UK each year. Insertion of talc slurry via a chest tube is the current standard treatment in the UK. However, some centres prefer local anaesthetic thoracoscopy and talc poudrage. There is no consensus as to which approach is most effective.
objectiveThis trial tested the hypothesis that thoracoscopy and talc poudrage increases the proportion of patients with successful pleurodesis at 3 months post procedure, compared with chest drain insertion and talc slurry.
designThis was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial with embedded economic evaluation. Follow-up took place at 1, 3 and 6 months.
settingThis trial was set in 17 NHS hospitals in the UK.
participantsA total of 330 adults with a confirmed diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion needing pleurodesis and fit to undergo thoracoscopy under local anaesthetic were included. Those adults needing a tissue diagnosis or with evidence of lung entrapment were excluded.
interventionsAllocation took place following minimisation with a random component, performed by a web-based, centralised computer system. Participants in the control arm were treated with a bedside chest drain insertion and 4 g of talc slurry. In the intervention arm, participants underwent local anaesthetic thoracoscopy with 4 g of talc poudrage.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was pleurodesis failure at 90 days post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality and patient-reported symptoms. A cost-utility analysis was also performed.
resultsA total of 166 and 164 patients were allocated to poudrage and slurry, respectively. Participants were well matched at baseline. For the primary outcome, no significant difference in pleurodesis failure was observed between the treatment groups at 90 days, with rates of 36 out of 161 (22%) and 38 out of 159 (24%) noted in the poudrage and slurry groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.55; LIMITATIONS: Entry criteria specified that patients must be sufficiently fit to undergo thoracoscopy, which may make the results less applicable to those patients presenting with a greater degree of frailty. Furthermore, the trial was conducted on an open-label basis, which may have influenced the results of patient-reported measures.
conclusionsThe TAPPS (evaluating the efficacy of Thoracoscopy And talc Poudrage versus Pleurodesis using talc Slurry) trial has robustly demonstrated that there is no additional clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness benefit in performing talc poudrage at thoracoscopy over bedside chest drain and talc slurry for the management of malignant pleural effusion.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN47845793.
fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
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.