SynthesisAnnals of Saudi medicine
Effectiveness of intercostal tube drainage versus other invasive approaches in initial management of pneumothorax in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of Saudi medicine. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe comparative effectiveness of intercostal tube drainage (ITD) and less invasive methods in initial pneumothorax management remains uncertain.
objectivesTo compare ITD with other invasive approaches in adults.
designA systematic review and meta-analysis based on PRISMA guidelines, covering twelve studies from nine countries (Iran, UK, Netherlands, USA, Belgium, Kuwait, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland) published between 1994 and 2021. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, and Google Scholar. The study encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective analyses with adults presenting pneumothorax. Quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials and the MINORS tool for non-randomized studies.
main outcome measuresImmediate success rates, hospital stay durations, complication rates, and recurrence rates at 12 months. SAMPLE SIZE: A total of 1204 patients were included across 12 studies, ten RCTs (n=932), one prospective (n=60) and one retrospective study (n=212).
resultsMeta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the ITD and the less invasive techniques in the immediate success rate (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.47-1.65, RISK OF BIAS: The RoB was low in 82% of studies assessed by RoB 2 and the study evaluated by MINORS demonstrated a moderate RoB. HETEROGENEITY: A high statistical heterogeneity was observed (I
conclusionsITD and other invasive approaches demonstrated comparable effectiveness, with no significant differences in immediate success, 1-week success, or recurrence rates. LIMITATIONS: The studies varied widely in design, patient groups, and quality. There were also signs of publication bias and a limited number of high-quality RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517888.
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.