Patient perspectives on the use of indwelling pleural catheters in malignant pleural effusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indwelling pleural catheters are an effective treatment option for patients with malignant pleural effusions. Despite their popularity, there remains a paucity of data on the patient experience and key patient-centred outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experience of patients receiving an indwelling pleural catheter to better inform and identify potential areas for improvement in care. METHODS: This was a multicentre survey study at three academic, tertiary-care centres in Canada. Patients with a diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion who had an indwelling pleural catheter inserted were included. An adapted questionnaire specific to indwelling pleural catheters was used with responses recorded on a 4-point Likert scale. Patients completed the questionnaire in-person or by phone at 2-week and 3-month follow-up appointments. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were enrolled in the study with 84 patients included in the final analysis. At the 2-week follow-up, patient-reported improvements in dyspnoea and quality of life from indwelling pleural catheter were high at 93% and 87%, respectively. The predominant issues identified were discomfort at time of insertion (58%), itching (49%), difficulty with sleeping (39%), discomfort with home drainage (36%) and the pleural catheter reminding patients of their disease (63%). Avoiding hospitalisation for the management of dyspnoea was important to 95% of patients. Findings were similar at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Indwelling pleural catheters are an effective intervention to directly improve dyspnoea and quality of life but have important disadvantages for some; clinicians and patients should be aware of these when making an informed decision regarding treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".