ArticleOpen respiratory archives
Efficacy and Safety of Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction With Endobronchial Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Open respiratory archives. 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.
- Prediction and intraoperative validation of pulmonary interlobar fissure development based on high-resolution thin-slice computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction three-dimensional reconstruction technology: a prospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Safety of flexible bronchoscopy in elderly patients.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- [Highlights of the 58th Congress of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR)].Open respiratory archivesReview
- SeparSEPAR (Sociedad Española de Neumologia y Cirugía Torácica) Clinical Protocol on Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction for Severe Emphysema.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Emphysema is a phenotype of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that causes air trapping and lung hyperinflation and, consequently, dyspnea, reduced exercise tolerance, and poor health-related quality of life. Several randomized controlled clinical trials have shown that bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBV) achieves clinically relevant improvements in dyspnea, pulmonary function, exercise capacity and quality of life 12 months after valve implantation in patients with heterogeneous emphysema without collateral ventilation. The goal of our meta-analysis is to examine the efficacy and safety of BLRV in patients with COPD. Material and methods: A literature search was performed with PubMed, Embase and Cochrane to identify randomized controlled trials on BLVR with endobronchial valves published from 2005 onwards. Results: Nine studies with a total of 1352 patients were included; 827 received EBV therapy and 525 standard of care (SOC) medications. The first group showed statistically significant improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, modified medical research council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), and a statistically significant reduction in residual volume (RV). The incidence of pneumothorax and exacerbations in the EBV arm increase significantly, and there were no significant difference between mortality rates. Conclusions: Patients with heterogeneous emphysema and no collateral ventilation showed significant improvements in lung function, exercise capacity, dyspnea score, and health-related quality of life after BLVR-EBV, although the risk of exacerbations and pneumothorax in the first 6 months increased compared with the group receiving standard care.
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.