Trial reportBMJ open respiratory research2025
First-line medical thoracoscopy for pleural infection: the SPIRIT randomised controlled feasibility trial.
Trial report in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPleural infection remains a significant clinical challenge, requiring hospitalisation, intravenous antibiotics and early chest drain insertion. Medical thoracoscopy (MT), a minimally invasive procedure used electively in the UK for malignant effusions, has demonstrated good outcomes when applied to acute pleural infection in retrospective case series. However, it has not been evaluated as a first-line intervention in the UK in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).
objectivesThe Studying Pleuroscopy in Routine Pleural Infection Treatment (SPIRIT) trial assessed the feasibility of conducting a full-scale RCT comparing MT with chest drain insertion for acute pleural infection within UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.
methodsSPIRIT was an open-label, randomised feasibility trial conducted across seven NHS centres between 2017 and 2019. Adults with suspected pleural infection were prescreened; eligible patients were randomised to either chest drain insertion (control) or MT (performed the same or following day) with 90-day follow-up. The primary outcome was feasibility, assessed through a composite of prescreen, screen and allocation failure rates. Secondary outcomes included inpatient-stay duration, mortality, radiological and microbiological outcomes, second-line interventions, patient-reported outcomes and adverse events.
resultsOf 193 patients prescreened, 181 (93.8%) were excluded due to at least one criterion. Key factors included lack of MT deliverability (49.2%), a not truly infected effusion (45.1%) and contraindications to drainage or study involvement (44.0%). Consequently, the primary feasibility endpoint was not met. All 12 eligible patients were randomised with no attrition. MT lasted 15 min longer than drain insertion, but chest drains remained in situ over 3 days longer (p=0.17) with a longer hospital stay (p=0.57). Radiological improvement, microbiological yield and symptom scores were similar. Adverse events occurred in one control and three MT patients.
conclusionA full-scale RCT is not likely to be feasible in an NHS setting on the proposed protocol. Targeted recruitment from centres equipped for emergency MT may enhance feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN98460319.
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.