ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Parallel-bar versus cross-bar configurations in the Nuss procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond bar configuration: redefining pectus excavatum repair from deformity correction to complete chest wall remodeling.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Parallel-bar versus cross-bar configurations in the Nuss procedure: addressing cohort overlap and morphology-based selection criteria.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Why is there so much reluctance to use more crossbars in pectus surgery?Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pectus excavatum (PE) represents the most prevalent congenital deformity of the chest wall, and minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) continues to evolve in pursuit of improved correction and reduced morbidity. Both cross-bar (CB) and parallel-bar (PB) configurations are widely adopted, yet comparative data remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated perioperative outcomes and postoperative efficacy of CB versus PB techniques. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through October 24, 2025. Studies directly comparing CB and PB and reporting at least one predefined outcome were eligible. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were estimated using a random-effects model based on the DerSimonian-Laird method. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence was graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Among the 1,021 patients analyzed, 449 underwent CB repair and 572 PB repair. Operative time [MD 4.79 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.27 to 15.85] and length of hospital stay (MD 0.24 days; 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.88) did not differ significantly between techniques. Rates of pleural effusion [4.6% Conclusions: CB and PB techniques demonstrate equivalent perioperative profiles and complication rates in MIRPE.
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.