ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Efficacy and safety of a whole lung lavage program for artificial stone silicosis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of silicosis has increased due to occupational silica exposure from artificial stone, with no treatments proven to halt or reverse the disease. Whole lung lavage (WLL) involves the instillation of fluid into the lungs to wash out silica particles and disease-causing inflammatory cells. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and possible benefit of WLL in patients with artificial stone silicosis. Methods: In this prospective observational study, people with progressive silicosis with ground glass predominant radiological changes underwent WLL. High resolution computed tomography (HRCT) chest, X-ray velocimetry (XV), lung function tests, forced oscillation technique (FOT), and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) were performed before and six months after the procedure. Results: Eight patients underwent WLL between June 2021 and November 2022. Five participants had an improvement in the International Classification of High Resolution Computed Tomography for Occupational and Environmental Respiratory Diseases (ICOERD) CT scores and reduction in XV regional ventilation distribution pre- and six months post-WLL. There was no difference in lung function [annualized rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted mean difference (MD) 1.81; 95% CI: -1.53 to 5.15, P=0.27; forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) % predicted MD -1.13, 95% CI: -5.08 to 2.83, P=0.55; diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted MD -2.62, 95% CI: -10.04 to 4.80, P=0.46]. There was no significant difference in CPET or FOT measurements. Following WLL, all patients experienced transient throat discomfort, one had fever and two required oral antibiotics. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: WLL for artificial stone silicosis is safe in an expert centre who has experience in performing WLL in this population, and there may be limited benefit in selected patients. Further research is required to select those who will derive the most benefit.
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.