Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534493›Full record

ArticleBreathe (Sheffield, England)2024

Con: indwelling pleural catheters cause harm to patients.

Katie Adams, Rahul Bhatnagar

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Katie AdamsRespiratory Department, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Rahul BhatnagarRespiratory Department, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) have rapidly grown in popularity since their introduction for the management of recurrent pleural effusions. In malignant pleural effusions especially, there has been a shift away from measuring pleurodesis success and towards more patient-centred outcomes. Multiple randomised controlled trials have shown that despite lower rates of pleurodesis, symptom control and quality of life outcomes are comparable when compared to alternatives such as talc pleurodesis. IPCs have the added benefit of minimising inpatient hospital stays and reducing the need for recurrent pleural interventions, key priorities for patients with palliative disease. As a result, IPC treatment is associated with excellent patient satisfaction coupled with acceptably low complication rates. Furthermore, in patients with a short life expectancy they confer a cost benefit for the healthcare system. Far from causing harm, IPCs are now recommended as first-line treatment by current clinical guidelines. In malignant pleural disease, guidance advocates IPCs should be offered as a first-line option with the focus on patient priorities and preferences. Ultimately IPCs provide a safe, effective, ambulatory option for managing recurrent pleural effusions.

Identifiers

PMID39534493
PMCPMC11555581

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.