ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Observation Alone Versus Interventional Procedures in Hemodynamically Stable Patients With Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies indicate that observation alone is sufficient for the management of stable pneumothorax. To compare clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes for treating hemodynamically stable adult patients with pneumothorax, the present review compared observation alone versus interventional procedures. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar from inception until June 24, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing observational therapy with conventional therapy for the treatment of adult pneumothorax. The pediatric age group and patients with tension pneumothorax were not included. Four hundred and forty-six patients were enrolled in three RCTs. The failure rate (relative risk (RR) 4.30; 95% CI = 0.23-81.82, p = 0.33) and mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI = 0.31-3.33, p = 0.98) of observation were comparable to those of the chest tube. Chest tube and observation both carried comparable risks of complications, including tension pneumothorax and empyema (RR 3.15; 95% CI = 0.67-1) and (RR 1.55; 95% CI = 0.21-11.56, p = 0.67), respectively. Between chest tubes and observation, there was no statistically significant difference in the duration of hospital stay. We conclude that observation is as safe and effective at treating adult patients with stable pneumothorax as a chest tube.
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.