ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Endobronchial Valve Treatment of Tuberculous Cavities in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Randomized Clinical Study.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforming pulmonary care with applications of endobronchial valves beyond emphysema: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Exploring lung cavity access to endobronchial valve in chronic pulmonary aspergillosis and nontuberculosis mycobacterial diseases, a radiological feasibility study.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Treatment outcomes in cavitary multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and risk factors for cavity closure: a retrospective cohort study in Southwest China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing antifungal treatment for chronic cavitary pulmonary aspergillosis through the addition of endobronchial valve therapy.Respiratory medicine case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (MDR-PTB) has become a major cause of high morbidity and mortality related to TB. Conventional drug regimens are ineffective for the treatment of MDR-PTB patients with cavities. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of one-way endobronchial valves (EBVs) for the treatment of cavities in MDR-PTB patients. Methods: MDR-PTB patients with positive sputum cultures, sputum smears, and cavities were treated with EBVs in the drainage bronchus of the pulmonary cavity between November 2013 and March 2018. The participants comprised those who had failed previous anti-tuberculosis therapy, as determined by drug susceptibility testing. Results: Thirty-five MDR-PTB patients were included, three of whom were lost during follow-up. The size of the lung cavity was reduced in all of the patients after EBV implantation, including the three lost to follow-up. In the remaining 32 patients, the sputum culture conversion (SCC) rate reached 100%, and the cavity closure rate was 68.8%. There were no significant differences in the cavity closure rate between patients aged ≤40 and >40 years, between the upper and lower lobes, or between the use and non-use of linezolid groups (p > 0.05). Interestingly, the cavity closure rate was higher in women than in men (p = 0.005). Moreover, the cavity closure rate correlated with the time to SCC (correlation coefficient, 0.8933; p < 0.0001). There were no severe adverse events in the patients treated with EBV implantation. Conclusion: EBV installation is effective and safe for the treatment of cavities in MDR-PTB patients. The efficacy of EBV treatment may not be affected by age, disease course, or the location of the lung lobe in the cavity.
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.