SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Should we abandon the simple aspiration in favour of chest tube drainage in the management of spontaneous pneumothorax? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
backgroundsFollowing the latest studies, the choice between chest tube drainage and simple aspiration remains debated in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between SA and CTD in treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax in adults in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsLiterature research was conducted with Medline, Embase and Central databases from inception to march 2025. The target population is adults presenting a SP managed by SA or CTD among randomized control trials and retrospective comparative studies. The RoB-2 and NOS was carried out for the quality assessment of studies. A meta-analysis was conducted with inverse variance and a random effect model.
results19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis comparing SA vs. CTD were as follows: immediate success OR = 0.42 (95% CI= [0.16, 1.09], p = 0.07), adverse effect occurrence OR = 0.22 (95% CI=[0.08, 0.61], p = 0.004), length of hospitalization MD = -2.59 (95% CI=[-3.57, -1.61], p < 0.001), pain score MD=-1.34 (95% CI=[-1.74, -0.95], p < 0.001).
conclusionThis meta-analysis shows no difference in the efficacy between SA and CTD in the treatment of SP, especially for PSP. However, the additional benefits of SA over CTD in clinical patient management support prioritizing this strategy, in line with international guideline recommendations.
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.