ArticleBMC surgery2026
Small-bore vs. large-bore chest tubes for pneumothorax: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of small-bore (≤ 14 Fr) versus large-bore (> 14 Fr) chest tubes in the treatment of pneumothorax.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted. Patients were categorized into small-bore and large-bore groups based on the initial drainage tube size. Outcomes, including treatment efficacy, drainage duration, lung re-expansion time, hospital stay, complication rates, and analgesic use, were compared between groups. Subgroup analyses were performed based on pneumothorax type as primary and secondary spontaneous pneumothorax.
resultsIn the overall population of 95 patients (55 large-bore, 40 small-bore), no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding treatment efficacy (90.9% vs. 80.0%, P = 0.063), drainage time, lung re-expansion time, or hospital stay. The large-bore group required a significantly higher equivalent dose of analgesics (P = 0.049). Complication rates were similar between groups. In patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax (SSP), the small-bore tube group demonstrated significantly shorter drainage duration and lung re-expansion time compared to the large-bore group (both P = 0.007).
conclusionIn this retrospective analysis, small-bore and large-bore chest tubes demonstrated comparable treatment efficacy for pneumothorax management, with no statistically significant difference observed between groups. The large-bore group required a higher equivalent analgesic dosage, although this finding is exploratory given the borderline statistical significance and absence of validated pain assessment instruments. In the SSP subgroup, small-bore tubes were associated with significantly shorter drainage duration and lung re-expansion time, though these findings warrant further prospective validation.
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.