ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Contemporary Lymphangiography-Guided Management of Postoperative Chylothorax in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo update pooled estimates of technical and clinical success of lymphangiography-guided management of postoperative chylothorax in adults. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1998 to January 2026 for studies reporting outcomes of lymphangiography-guided management of postoperative chylothorax in adults. Two reviewers independently screened records and assessed risk of bias with ROBINS-I. Logit-transformed proportions were pooled with DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models, with robustness checked using restricted maximum-likelihood and Hartung-Knapp estimators, prespecified subgroup and era analyses, sensitivity analyses restricted to studies of at least 10 patients and excluding the largest cohorts, publication-bias testing, and GRADE rating of certainty.
resultsOf 710 records, 28 studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 17 in meta-analysis. Pooled technical success was 75.3%, up from 63.1% in 2018, and clinical success was 74.5%; both were stable under restricted maximum-likelihood and Hartung-Knapp models, when restricted to studies of at least 10 patients (73.1% and 72.3%), and on leave-one-out analysis. Clinical success was numerically higher after esophagectomy (82.6%) than in mixed-origin cohorts (73.9%), but subgroup intervals were wide and overlapping. No covariate explained the substantial heterogeneity (I-squared 68-80%). Egger testing indicated asymmetry for clinical (P = .03) but not technical success (P = .65). Certainty of evidence was low to very low.
conclusionLymphangiography-guided management estimates are heterogeneous, of low certainty, and non-comparative. Their interpretation is limited by inconsistent definitions of success, the absence of comparative studies, and other factors; standardized reporting and head-to-head studies are needed before efficacy can be determined. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261388785. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4 (systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42642507What 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.