Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39351376›Full record

ReviewERJ open research2024

Clinical overview of the physiology and pathophysiology of pleural fluid movement: a narrative review.

Lucía Ferreiro, María E Toubes, Juan Suárez-Antelo, Nuria Rodríguez-Núñez, Luis Valdés

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors.

Lucía FerreiroServicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9023-0429
María E ToubesServicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Juan Suárez-AnteloServicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Nuria Rodríguez-NúñezServicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Luis ValdésServicio de Neumología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In physiological conditions, the pleural space couples the lung with the chest wall and contains a small amount of fluid in continuous turnover. The volume of pleural fluid is the result from the balance between the entry of fluid through the pleural capillaries and drainage by the lymphatics in the most dependent areas of the parietal pleura. Fluid filtration is governed by Starling forces, determined by the hydrostatic and oncotic pressures of the capillaries and the pleural space. The reabsorption rate is 28 times greater than the rate of pleural fluid production. The mesothelial layer of the inner lining of the pleural space is metabolically active and also plays a role in the production and reabsorption of pleural fluid. Pleural effusion occurs when the balance between the amount of fluid that enters the pleural space and the amount that is reabsorbed is disrupted. Alterations in hydrostatic or oncotic pressure produce a transudate, but they do not cause any structural damage to the pleura. In contrast, disturbances in fluid flow (increased filtration or decreased reabsorption) produce an exudate

Identifiers

PMID39351376
PMCPMC11440405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.