Trial reportSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2024
Comparison between use of a pleural drainage system with flutter valve and a conventional water-seal drainage system after lung resection: a randomized prospective study.
Trial report in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel closed chest drainage device.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is still a debate regarding the most appropriate pleural collector model to ensure a short hospital stay and minimum complications.
objectivesTo study aimed to compare the time of air leak, time to drain removal, and length of hospital stay between a standard water-seal drainage system and a pleural collector system with a unidirectional flutter valve and rigid chamber. DESIGN AND
settingA randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted at a high-complexity hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsSixty-three patients who underwent open or video-assisted thoracoscopic lung wedge resection or lobectomy were randomized into two groups, according to the drainage system used: the control group (WS), which used a conventional water-seal pleural collector, and the study group (V), which used a flutter valve device (Sinapi® Model XL1000®). Variables related to the drainage system, time of air leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in hospital were compared between the groups.
resultsMost patients (63%) had lung cancer. No differences were observed between the groups in the time of air leak or time spent hospitalized. The time to drain removal was slightly shorter in the V group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Seven patients presented with surgery-related complications: five and two in the WS and V groups, respectively.
conclusionsAir leak, time to drain removal, and time spent in the hospital were similar between the groups. The system used in the V group resulted in no adverse events and was safe. REGISTRATION: RBR-85qq6jc (https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-85qq6jc).
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.