ReviewThe clinical respiratory journal2023
A retrospective comparison between digital to conventional drainage systems for secondary spontaneous pneumothorax related to diffuse interstitial lung disease.
Review in The clinical respiratory journal, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A retrospective comparison between digital to conventional drainage systems for secondary spontaneous pneumothorax related to diffuse interstitial lung disease.The clinical respiratory journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSecondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP) occurs as one of the complications associated with interstitial pneumonia (IP). Chest drainage is performed when there is a large volume of air in the pleural space. Notably, SSP with IP (SSP-IP) is frequently not curable by chest drainage only. A digital drainage system (DDS) provides an objective evaluation of air leakage and maintains a pre-determined negative pressure, compared to an analog drainage system (ADS). Few studies have reported the effectiveness of DDS in the treatment of SSP-IP. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of DDS for SSP-IP.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with SSP-IP who had undergone chest drainage. We reviewed the included patients' medical records, laboratory data, computed tomography findings, and pulmonary function data.
resultsDDS was used in 24 patients and ADS in 49 patients. The mean duration of chest drainage was 11.4 ± 1.9 days in the DDS group and 14.2 ± 1.3 days in the ADS group, which was not significantly different (p = 0.218). Surgery, pleurodesis, and/or factor XIII administration were performed in 40 patients. Additionally, five (20.8%) patients in the DDS group and nine (18.4%) in the ADS group had a recurrence of pneumothorax within 4 weeks (p = 1.000). One patient (14%) in the DDS group and six (12.2%) in the ADS group (p = 0.414) were cured of pneumothorax but later died.
conclusionDDS did not demonstrate a significant difference in the shortening of chest drainage duration. Further study is needed to validate the results of this study.
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.