SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Effectiveness and safety of four drainage methods for lung abscess: a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy differences between SNM and various peripheral nerve electrical stimulation modalities for NLUTD: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
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
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of various pus drainage methods for lung abscess via network meta-analysis. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, VIP, Wanfang, and CNKI were searched up to April 2025. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (v5.4.0). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using Rstudio (v4.4.1). Results: A total of 23 RCTs (1,453 patients) evaluating four drainage techniques were included. Effective rate: CT-guided percutaneous drainage + antibiotics ranked highest (77% probability), outperforming antibiotics alone (OR = 5.4) and conventional postural drainage + antibiotics (OR = 7.4). Hospital stay: Ultrasound-guided drainage + antibiotics ranked best (89% probability), significantly reducing stay versus conventional postural drainage + antibiotics (MD = -19 days). Symptom resolution: Ultrasound-guided drainage + antibiotics ranked highest for cough (SUCRA 97%) and fever resolution (SUCRA 97%). Lesion reduction: Modified postural drainage + antibiotics ranked highest (98% probability), surpassing conventional postural drainage + antibiotics (OR = 0.48) and antibiotics alone (OR = 0.15). Conclusion: Comprehensive analysis indicates that ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage combined with antibiotics demonstrates the highest probability of improvement in key outcome measures, including time to fever resolution, length of hospital stay, and time to cough resolution, potentially showcasing a comprehensive potential for clinical benefit. CT-guided percutaneous drainage combined with conventional antibiotic therapy may be the most effective in terms of the effective rate, while modified postural drainage combined with conventional antibiotic therapy may be the most prominent in increasing the number of lesion reduction. Furthermore, conventional antibiotic therapy alone was inferior to pus drainage procedures combined with conventional antibiotics across multiple outcome measures and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse reactions. However, due to the limited number of available studies, these findings can only be considered preliminary. Future validation through a substantial number of multicenter, large-sample, double-blind randomized controlled trials is warranted. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251127786.
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.