ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Feasibility of ambulatory chest drainage and talc pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with a malignant pleural effusion (MPE) experience significant morbidity and a significant symptom burden. For some patients the existing options of inpatient chest drain insertion with talc pleurodesis or indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) insertion may not meet their treatment goals. Based on local patient involvement and engagement, we devised a feasibility study to assess whether chest drain insertion and talc pleurodesis was feasible and safe to deliver on an ambulatory basis. Methods: A protocol for ambulatory drain insertion and talc pleurodesis for management of MPE was devised. A detailed schematic of the proforma is included. The primary outcome was safety and feasibility of the protocol. We established recruitment criteria as: clinically or cytologically diagnosed MPE, World Health Organization performance status of two or less (three if due to breathlessness), estimated life expectancy over 30 days and age >18 years. Exclusion criteria were: known non-expansile ipsilateral lung, previous failed ipsilateral pleurodesis, pregnancy or being unable to safely manage in the community as defined by the treating clinician. Our target enrolment was ten cases. Results: Ten eligible patients were recruited. All patients survived to 60 days post protocol completion. Eight patients received the trial protocol on an entirely ambulatory basis, six of whom received talc pleurodesis. There were three hospital admissions affecting two patients during protocol administration. Neither patient was felt to have been admitted as a direct consequence of the trial protocol. There were no other reported complications. Specifically, there were no issues with drain displacement or accidental disconnections during the study period. The intervention pleurodesis failure rate at 60 days for the entire trial cohort was 30%. Three patients required further pleural procedures, all of whom had received talc slurry. Conclusions: Our project demonstrates that our protocol for chest drain insertion and talc pleurodesis can be safely and feasibly delivered on an ambulatory basis to patients with a MPE. More work is required to establish the success of our ambulatory pathway compared to existing standards of care. Additionally, work is required to assess how we improve the appeal of an ambulatory pathway with both our patients and clinicians in order to offer a deliverable treatment that matches the care priorities of our patients.
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.