ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
Clinical outcomes of digital versus traditional chest drains after thoracic surgery: a narrative review of randomised trials.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoluminal approaches to postoperative air leaks.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines have provided evidence-based standards for the recommended use of digital drains after thoracic surgery. However, results from randomised trials are conflicting regarding the impact of digital drains on clinical outcomes, such as length of hospital stay. This narrative review aims to review evidence-based, high-quality trials to ascertain postoperative outcomes comparing digital with traditional drain systems in adults undergoing thoracic surgery. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using Narrative Review reporting guidance. An independent researcher interrogated PubMed, Scopus, and Livivo for all original articles published between 2013 and June 2023. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Thoracic surgery" and specific keywords related to chest drains were used. Articles in English and in humans only were included. Key Content and Findings: A total of 3,403 publications were identified, of which 1,251 were duplicates. Of the remaining 2,152, a further 2,137 were excluded, leaving 15 eligible publications for analysis. Most studies presented the primary outcomes of drain duration or length of hospital stay using non-parametric methods, making it impossible to pool the data into a meta-analysis; as such, a narrative review was undertaken. Of the 15 eligible publications, six were considered out of scope for this analysis. Of the remaining nine, one was an interim analysis of another in the list, one was a paediatric study, and two were observational studies. Five studies were randomised trials, which were included in the final analysis. In these five studies, the average length of hospital stay was reduced by one day. However, the statistical significance varied from highly significant (P<0.001) to non-significance (P=0.58) despite the same magnitude of effect (a difference of one day). Conclusions: All published randomised trials reported shorter lengths of hospital stay with the use of digital drains. Time-to-event methods are recommended to allow appropriate inferences and certainty estimates for future pooled meta-analyses.
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.