SynthesisBMJ open respiratory research2024
Compensatory function change by segment-counting method in predicted postoperative pulmonary function at 1 year after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The lung-muscle metabolic axis: a proposed mechanism for post-resection systemic frailty.Surgery today · 2026Review
- A transfer learning-based hybrid deep- and machine-learning regression approach for predicting the postoperative pulmonary function.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Surgical extent as a determinant of systemic reserve after lung resection: Why spirometric recovery does not capture the true physiological cost.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Postoperative changes in low attenuation volume according to the number of resected subsegments: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the accuracy of the segment-counting method in predicting long-term pulmonary function recovery and investigate compensatory changes following different extents of lung resection.
methodsWe included studies that measured forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) between 6 and 18 months postoperatively, comparing it to the predicted postoperative FEV1 (ppoFEV1) using the segment-counting method. The extent of lung resection was correlated with the ratio of postoperative FEV1 to ppoFEV1. A comprehensive search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science using terms related to 'lung resection' and 'pulmonary function'. The final search was completed on 18 February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
results39 studies comprising 78 observation cohorts met the inclusion criteria. The analysis showed significant differences in pulmonary function in patients with ≥3 resected segments. Meta-regression indicated that the number of resected segments significantly impacted the postoperative FEV1/ppoFEV1 ratio, explaining 57% of the variance (R²=0. 57), with moderate heterogeneity (I²=61. 87%) across studies. Other variables, including patient age, body mass index, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery use and tumour stage, did not show significant effects. DISCUSSION: Limitations of the review included moderate heterogeneity between studies and potential selection bias related to the stage of cancer and lung volume reduction effects. The findings suggest that the extent of lung resection correlates with better-than-expected pulmonary function, potentially due to compensatory mechanisms. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021293608).
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.