MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414984206 · doi:10.1186/s12893-025-03157-4

A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of parietal pleurectomy versus pleural abrasion in treating spontaneous pneumothorax

2025· review· en· W4414984206 on OpenAlex
Kai Yang, Chen Wang, Qi Wang, Yongzhi Liu, Wei Cao, Jinlong Zhang, Haochi Li, Dacheng Jin, Yunjiu Gou

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPleural and Pulmonary Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Department of Gansu ProvinceGansu Education Department
KeywordsPleurectomyPneumothoraxCochrane LibraryPerioperativeThoracoscopyCorneal abrasion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous pneumothorax is a common benign disease. Its treatment aims to restore the collapsed lungs, relieve symptoms, and prevent recurrence. Currently, video-assisted thoracoscopic bullectomy combined with parietal pleural fixation has become the mainstream treatment method. However, the choice between parietal pleurectomy and pleural abrasion remains a subject of continuous debate. Consequently, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the differences in perioperative efficacy and complications between the two surgical methods combined with bullectomy. METHODS: Relevant literatures were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the establishment date of each database to February 1, 2025. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the literatures were screened. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 16MP software. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were employed to evaluate the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 15 literatures were included, involving 2732 patients. The meta-analysis results showed that the postoperative pain degree of the two groups was similar [MD = 0.32, 95%CI (−0.13 ~ 0.77), P = 0.17]. However, the pleural abrasion group had shorter operation time [MD = 15.87, 95%CI (11.30 ~ 20.44), P < 0.0001], less intraoperative blood loss [MD = 14.62, 95%CI (8.58 ~ 20.66), P < 0.0001], less total postoperative drainage volume [MD = 67.82, 95%CI (10.26 ~ 125.38), P=0.02], shorter postoperative drainage time [MD = 0.38, 95%CI (0.05 ~ 0.72), P༝0.02], and shorter hospital stay [MD = 0.25, 95%CI (0.04 ~ 0.46), P༝0.02] compared with the parietal pleurectomy group, and the differences were statistically significant. In terms of safety, the parietal pleurectomy group would increase the incidence of postoperative hemorrhage [OR = 3.99, 95%CI (1.49 ~ 10.65), P = 0.006], but there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative atelectasis (P = 0.47), pulmonary leakage (P = 0.95) and pulmonary infection (P = 0.05). In addition, the parietal pleurectomy group could effectively reduce the long-term recurrence rate of patients [OR = 0.56, 95%CI (0.41 ~ 0.77), P = 0.0003], and the difference was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with spontaneous pneumothorax and bullae, parietal pleurectomy inevitably increases the perioperative burden and prolongs the hospital stay of patients, but can effectively prevent postoperative recurrence. The two surgical methods have similar safety, but parietal pleurectomy will increase the risk of postoperative hemorrhage. Clinically, the optimal treatment plan should be selected based on the individual characteristics of 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it