Management of chest tubes after pulmonary resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of suction with water seal, compared with water seal alone, applied to intra pleural chest tubes on the duration of air leaks in patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of the 2 methods on the duration of air leaks. Trials were systematically assessed for eligibility and validity. Data were extracted in duplicate and pooled across studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 7 RCTs that met the eligibility criteria. No difference was identified between the 2 methods in duration of air leak (weighted mean difference [WMD] 1.15 days, favours water seal; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.64 to 2.94), time to discharge (WMD 2.19 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.63 to 5.01), duration of chest tubes (WMD 0.96 d, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.12 to 2.05) or incidence of prolonged air leaks (absolute risk reduction [ARR] 0.04, favours water seal; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09). Water seal was associated with a significantly increased incidence of postoperative pneumothorax (ARR -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07). CONCLUSION: No differences were identified in terms of duration of air leak, incidence of prolonged air leak, duration of chest tubes and duration of hospital stay when chest tubes were placed to suction rather than water seal. Chest tube suction appears to be superior to water seal in reducing the incidence of pneumothorax; however, the clinical significance of this finding is unclear.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it