ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Digital Versus Conventional Chest Drainage Systems in Resource-limited Setting: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Digital Drainage Systems in Postoperative Chest Tube Management after Pulmonary Resection: Current Status and Future Perspectives].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Review
- Advantages of negative-pressure suction device compared to traditional chest closed drainage in the management of patients after mediastinal mass resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether digital drainage systems reduce chest tube duration and hospital stay following anatomical lung resection in a resource-limited healthcare setting.
methodsThis retrospective study, approved by the institutional ethics committee (Approval No. 30491514.3.0000.0065), compared digital and conventional water seal drainage systems in a public hospital in Brazil. Outcomes included chest tube duration and hospital stay. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control for confounding variables.
resultsA total of 388 patients were included (67.8% smokers, mean age 63.8 years). After PSM, 85 matched pairs, no significant differences were observed in most demographic and clinical variables. Lobectomies were more frequent in the conventional group (100% vs 85.9%, P < 0.001). After paired statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant differences in chest tube drainage time (4.2 vs 4.4 days, P = 0.397) or hospital stay duration (4.9 vs 5.2 days, P = 0.745).
conclusionsIn a resource-constrained setting, digital drainage systems are feasible and may support clinical decision-making through precise air leak quantification. However, no significant differences were observed in key outcomes when compared to conventional drainage, warranting further investigation into cost-effectiveness and broader implementation strategies.
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.