Efficacy and safety of early chest tube removal after selective pulmonary resection with high-output drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is controversy over the drainage threshold for removal of chest tubes in the absence of significant air leakage after selective pulmonary resection. METHODS: A comprehensive search of online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid, Elsevier, Ebsco, and Wiley) and clinical trial registries (WHO-ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov) was performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of early chest tube removal with high-output drainage. Primary outcome (postoperative hospital day) and secondary outcomes (30-day complications, rate of thoracentesis, and chest tube placement) were extracted and synthesized. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were used to explore the potential heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment by the online GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. RESULTS: Six cohort studies with a total of 1262 patients were included in the final analysis. The postoperative hospital stay in the high-output group was significantly shorter than in the conventional treatment group (weighted mean difference: -1.34 [-2.34 to -0.34] day, P = .009). While there was no significant difference between 2 groups in 30-day complications (relative ratio [RR]: 0.92 [0.77-1.11], P = .38), the rate of thoracentesis (RR: 1.93 [0.63-5.88], P = .25) and the rate of chest tube placement (RR: 1.00 [0.37-2.70], P = .99). According to the sensitivity analysis, the relative impacts of the 2 groups had already stabilized. Subgroup analysis revealed that postoperative hospital stay was modified by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. The online GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool presented very low quality of evidence for the available data. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed that it is feasible and safe to remove a chest tube with high-output drainage after pulmonary resection for selected patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".