AABIP Evidence-informed Guidelines and Expert Panel Report for the Management of Indwelling Pleural Catheters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the efficacy of Indwelling pleural catheters for palliation of malignant pleural effusions is supported by relatively robust evidence, there is less clarity surrounding the postinsertion management. METHODS: The Trustworthy Consensus-Based Statement approach was utilized to develop unbiased, scientifically valid guidance for the management of patients with malignant effusions treated with indwelling pleural catheters. A comprehensive electronic database search of PubMed was performed based on a priori crafted PICO questions (Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcomes paradigm). Manual searches of the literature were performed to identify additional relevant literature. Dual screenings at the title, abstract, and full-text levels were performed. Identified studies were then assessed for quality based on a combination of validated tools. Appropriateness for data pooling and formation of evidence-based recommendations was assessed using predetermined criteria. All panel members participated in development of the final recommendations utilizing the modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies were identified for formal quality assessment, all of which were deemed to have a high risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to allow for data pooling and formation of any evidence-based recommendations. Panel consensus resulted in 11 ungraded consensus-based recommendations. CONCLUSION: This manuscript was developed to provide clinicians with guidance on the management of patients with indwelling pleural catheters placed for palliation of malignant pleural effusions. Through a systematic and rigorous process, management suggestions were developed based on the best available evidence with augmentation by expert opinion when necessary. In addition, these guidelines highlight important gaps in knowledge which require further study.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.154 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".