ArticleERJ open research2025
Enzymatic therapy
Article in ERJ open research, 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.
- Review
- What is new in pleural infections?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Review
- Patient Preferences in empYema treatment (PAPY-study): are we investigating relevant outcomes for patients?Journal of thoracic disease · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Parapneumonic pleural infections are frequently encountered, but the optimal treatment regimen remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether immediate video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has advantages over intrapleural enzymatic therapy (IET). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection till November 2023 and included studies comparing IET and VATS in adult patients with parapneumonic pleural infections. Primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included mortality and morbidity. Study quality was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB 2. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results: We screened 2263 articles; eight were included in the final analysis, covering 1023 patients (n=465 IET (mostly single agent IET); n=558 VATS). Six were non-randomised studies (n=5 with serious risk of bias) comprising 964 patients, and two were small, randomised feasibility studies (n=1 with high risk of bias), comprising 59 patients. In the meta-analysis, LOS in non-randomised studies was shorter for patients treated by VATS (mean difference 4.2 days; 95% CI 1.5-7.0). However, no significant difference was reported in the randomised feasibility studies. Mortality and morbidity rates showed no significant difference. Interpretation: In this meta-analysis of non-randomised studies with a high risk of selection bias, VATS appears superior to IET regarding LOS in the treatment of parapneumonic pleural infections, without increased mortality and morbidity rate. Two recently published randomised feasibility studies failed to confirm this finding, but were not designed to detect a difference in LOS. This meta-analysis highlights the need for high-quality studies.
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.