Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32642261›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020

Sublobar resection: functional evaluation and pathophysiological considerations.

Pierachille Santus, Elisa Franceschi, Dejan Radovanovic

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pierachille SantusDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), Università degli Studi di Milano, Division of Respiratory Diseases, Ospedale L. Sacco, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Elisa FranceschiDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), Università degli Studi di Milano, Division of Respiratory Diseases, Ospedale L. Sacco, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Dejan RadovanovicDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), Università degli Studi di Milano, Division of Respiratory Diseases, Ospedale L. Sacco, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITLuigi Sacco Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are part of consolidated standard operating procedures in thoracic surgery. PFTs are usually used to assess the pre-operative risk, post-operative outcomes and complications after pulmonary resections. The only functional parameter used in common practice is the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV

Indexed as

forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)lobectomylung mechanicsPathophysiologysegmentectomy

Identifiers

PMID32642261
PMCPMC7330776
OpenAlexW2997310302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.