SynthesisLung2025
Surgical and Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction for Severe Emphysema: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lung, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endobronchial Valves for Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction in Severe Emphysema: A Reversible and Non-Surgical Treatment for Patients Who May or May Not Be Candidates for Lung Transplantation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Regenerative therapeutics for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- From Awake to Minimalist Spontaneous Ventilation Thoracoscopic Lung Surgery: An Ongoing Journey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundAlong with lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), bronchoscopic lung volume reduction is a treatment option for end-stage emphysema. However, comparisons among interventions remain insufficient.
methodsWe searched on PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials with outcomes measuring mid-term mortality within 6 months, changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV
resultsTwenty-five randomized controlled trials involving 4,283 patients were included, identifying seven types of procedures and standard of care. Mid-term mortality increased in LVRS and endobronchial valve (EBV) (LVRS, risk ratio [RR] 3.26, 95% CrI 1.98-6.21, low certainty; EBV, RR 2.06 95% CrI 1.07-4.36, moderate certainty). LVRS showed the largest improvements: change in FEV
conclusionLVRS offers high efficacies but is accompanied by increased mid-term mortality. EBV and EBC also showed effectiveness; however, they increased pneumothorax, and EBV slightly increased mortality. For accurate assessment, long-term survival data of BLVR are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39762564What 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.