Loading…

Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is widely managed according to size with interventional techniques based on practice guidelines. Interventional management is not without complications and observational data suggest conservative management works. The current guidelines are based on expert consensus...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2014-12, Vol.2014 (12), p.CD010565-CD010565
Main Authors: Ashby, Michael, Haug, Greg, Mulcahy, Pete, Ogden, Kathryn J, Jensen, Oliver, Walters, Julia A E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-5f8101a8dc7f13ccdea89cc606e46902130e39a3907591b2dd475e7b8f0ed7b43
cites
container_end_page CD010565
container_issue 12
container_start_page CD010565
container_title Cochrane database of systematic reviews
container_volume 2014
creator Ashby, Michael
Haug, Greg
Mulcahy, Pete
Ogden, Kathryn J
Jensen, Oliver
Walters, Julia A E
description Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is widely managed according to size with interventional techniques based on practice guidelines. Interventional management is not without complications and observational data suggest conservative management works. The current guidelines are based on expert consensus rather than evidence, and a systematic review may help in identifying evidence for this practice. The objective of the review is to compare conservative and interventional treatments of adult primary spontaneous pneumothorax for outcomes of clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1920 to 26th June 2014); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1947 to 26th June 2014); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1980 to 26th June 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1945 to 26th June 2014). We searched ongoing trials via the relevant databases and contacted authors. We also searched the 'grey literature'. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and we accepted quasi-RCTs if a systematic method of allocation was used. Participants were limited to adults aged 18 to 50 years, with their first symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax with radiological evidence and no underlying lung disease. Two of five authors independently reviewed all studies in the search criteria and made inclusions and exclusions according to the selection criteria. No statistical methods were necessary as there were no included trials. We identified 358 studies with duplicates removed. There were three potentially relevant studies that we excluded as they were not randomized controlled trials. There was one ongoing trial that was relevant and we contacted the authors and confirmed the study is ongoing at June 2014. We will update this review when this ongoing study is completed. There are no completed randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults. There is a lack of high-quality evidence for current guidelines in management and a need for randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for this condition.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/14651858.CD010565.pub2
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6516953</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1641856700</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-5f8101a8dc7f13ccdea89cc606e46902130e39a3907591b2dd475e7b8f0ed7b43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUE1LxDAUDIK4a_UvLD166Zo0TZNcBKmfsOBFwYNQ0vR1t9ImNWmL_nsDu4qeHu8NM29mEFoRvCYYp5ckyxkRTKyLG0wwy9l6mKr0CC0DIJNM0tcFOvX-HWMqCREnaJEyRiTnYoneCms8uFmN7QzxDM5PPm7NGE5gxtYa1cW9MmoLfdjjxrp4cG2v3FfsB2tGZcAGxmBg6u24s059Bnqs6qkb_Rk6blTn4fwwI_Ryd_tcPCSbp_vH4nqT6IzTNGGNIJgoUWveEKp1DUpIrXOcQwiAU0IxUKmoxJxJUqV1nXEGvBINhppXGY3Q1V435O6h1sGpU115MFpa1Zb_EdPuyq2dy9BbLhkNAhcHAWc_JvBj2bdeQ9ft45Ukz0LBOQ8NRmj199fvk59K6Tez_nyF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1641856700</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ashby, Michael ; Haug, Greg ; Mulcahy, Pete ; Ogden, Kathryn J ; Jensen, Oliver ; Walters, Julia A E</creator><creatorcontrib>Ashby, Michael ; Haug, Greg ; Mulcahy, Pete ; Ogden, Kathryn J ; Jensen, Oliver ; Walters, Julia A E</creatorcontrib><description>Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is widely managed according to size with interventional techniques based on practice guidelines. Interventional management is not without complications and observational data suggest conservative management works. The current guidelines are based on expert consensus rather than evidence, and a systematic review may help in identifying evidence for this practice. The objective of the review is to compare conservative and interventional treatments of adult primary spontaneous pneumothorax for outcomes of clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1920 to 26th June 2014); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1947 to 26th June 2014); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1980 to 26th June 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1945 to 26th June 2014). We searched ongoing trials via the relevant databases and contacted authors. We also searched the 'grey literature'. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and we accepted quasi-RCTs if a systematic method of allocation was used. Participants were limited to adults aged 18 to 50 years, with their first symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax with radiological evidence and no underlying lung disease. Two of five authors independently reviewed all studies in the search criteria and made inclusions and exclusions according to the selection criteria. No statistical methods were necessary as there were no included trials. We identified 358 studies with duplicates removed. There were three potentially relevant studies that we excluded as they were not randomized controlled trials. There was one ongoing trial that was relevant and we contacted the authors and confirmed the study is ongoing at June 2014. We will update this review when this ongoing study is completed. There are no completed randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults. There is a lack of high-quality evidence for current guidelines in management and a need for randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for this condition.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1469-493X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010565.pub2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25519778</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Child health ; Humans ; Pain &amp; anaesthesia ; Pneumothorax - therapy ; Respiratory Management</subject><ispartof>Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014-12, Vol.2014 (12), p.CD010565-CD010565</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-5f8101a8dc7f13ccdea89cc606e46902130e39a3907591b2dd475e7b8f0ed7b43</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25519778$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ashby, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haug, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Pete</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogden, Kathryn J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walters, Julia A E</creatorcontrib><title>Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults</title><title>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</title><addtitle>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</addtitle><description>Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is widely managed according to size with interventional techniques based on practice guidelines. Interventional management is not without complications and observational data suggest conservative management works. The current guidelines are based on expert consensus rather than evidence, and a systematic review may help in identifying evidence for this practice. The objective of the review is to compare conservative and interventional treatments of adult primary spontaneous pneumothorax for outcomes of clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1920 to 26th June 2014); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1947 to 26th June 2014); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1980 to 26th June 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1945 to 26th June 2014). We searched ongoing trials via the relevant databases and contacted authors. We also searched the 'grey literature'. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and we accepted quasi-RCTs if a systematic method of allocation was used. Participants were limited to adults aged 18 to 50 years, with their first symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax with radiological evidence and no underlying lung disease. Two of five authors independently reviewed all studies in the search criteria and made inclusions and exclusions according to the selection criteria. No statistical methods were necessary as there were no included trials. We identified 358 studies with duplicates removed. There were three potentially relevant studies that we excluded as they were not randomized controlled trials. There was one ongoing trial that was relevant and we contacted the authors and confirmed the study is ongoing at June 2014. We will update this review when this ongoing study is completed. There are no completed randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults. There is a lack of high-quality evidence for current guidelines in management and a need for randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for this condition.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Child health</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Pain &amp; anaesthesia</subject><subject>Pneumothorax - therapy</subject><subject>Respiratory Management</subject><issn>1469-493X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVUE1LxDAUDIK4a_UvLD166Zo0TZNcBKmfsOBFwYNQ0vR1t9ImNWmL_nsDu4qeHu8NM29mEFoRvCYYp5ckyxkRTKyLG0wwy9l6mKr0CC0DIJNM0tcFOvX-HWMqCREnaJEyRiTnYoneCms8uFmN7QzxDM5PPm7NGE5gxtYa1cW9MmoLfdjjxrp4cG2v3FfsB2tGZcAGxmBg6u24s059Bnqs6qkb_Rk6blTn4fwwI_Ryd_tcPCSbp_vH4nqT6IzTNGGNIJgoUWveEKp1DUpIrXOcQwiAU0IxUKmoxJxJUqV1nXEGvBINhppXGY3Q1V435O6h1sGpU115MFpa1Zb_EdPuyq2dy9BbLhkNAhcHAWc_JvBj2bdeQ9ft45Ukz0LBOQ8NRmj199fvk59K6Tez_nyF</recordid><startdate>20141218</startdate><enddate>20141218</enddate><creator>Ashby, Michael</creator><creator>Haug, Greg</creator><creator>Mulcahy, Pete</creator><creator>Ogden, Kathryn J</creator><creator>Jensen, Oliver</creator><creator>Walters, Julia A E</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141218</creationdate><title>Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults</title><author>Ashby, Michael ; Haug, Greg ; Mulcahy, Pete ; Ogden, Kathryn J ; Jensen, Oliver ; Walters, Julia A E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-5f8101a8dc7f13ccdea89cc606e46902130e39a3907591b2dd475e7b8f0ed7b43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Child health</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Pain &amp; anaesthesia</topic><topic>Pneumothorax - therapy</topic><topic>Respiratory Management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ashby, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haug, Greg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Pete</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogden, Kathryn J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walters, Julia A E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ashby, Michael</au><au>Haug, Greg</au><au>Mulcahy, Pete</au><au>Ogden, Kathryn J</au><au>Jensen, Oliver</au><au>Walters, Julia A E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults</atitle><jtitle>Cochrane database of systematic reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</addtitle><date>2014-12-18</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>2014</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>CD010565</spage><epage>CD010565</epage><pages>CD010565-CD010565</pages><eissn>1469-493X</eissn><abstract>Primary spontaneous pneumothorax is widely managed according to size with interventional techniques based on practice guidelines. Interventional management is not without complications and observational data suggest conservative management works. The current guidelines are based on expert consensus rather than evidence, and a systematic review may help in identifying evidence for this practice. The objective of the review is to compare conservative and interventional treatments of adult primary spontaneous pneumothorax for outcomes of clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014); MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1920 to 26th June 2014); EMBASE via Ovid SP (1947 to 26th June 2014); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1980 to 26th June 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1945 to 26th June 2014). We searched ongoing trials via the relevant databases and contacted authors. We also searched the 'grey literature'. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and we accepted quasi-RCTs if a systematic method of allocation was used. Participants were limited to adults aged 18 to 50 years, with their first symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax with radiological evidence and no underlying lung disease. Two of five authors independently reviewed all studies in the search criteria and made inclusions and exclusions according to the selection criteria. No statistical methods were necessary as there were no included trials. We identified 358 studies with duplicates removed. There were three potentially relevant studies that we excluded as they were not randomized controlled trials. There was one ongoing trial that was relevant and we contacted the authors and confirmed the study is ongoing at June 2014. We will update this review when this ongoing study is completed. There are no completed randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults. There is a lack of high-quality evidence for current guidelines in management and a need for randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and interventional management for this condition.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>25519778</pmid><doi>10.1002/14651858.CD010565.pub2</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1469-493X
ispartof Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014-12, Vol.2014 (12), p.CD010565-CD010565
issn 1469-493X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6516953
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Child health
Humans
Pain & anaesthesia
Pneumothorax - therapy
Respiratory Management
title Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T05%3A51%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conservative%20versus%20interventional%20management%20for%20primary%20spontaneous%20pneumothorax%20in%20adults&rft.jtitle=Cochrane%20database%20of%20systematic%20reviews&rft.au=Ashby,%20Michael&rft.date=2014-12-18&rft.volume=2014&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=CD010565&rft.epage=CD010565&rft.pages=CD010565-CD010565&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010565.pub2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1641856700%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-5f8101a8dc7f13ccdea89cc606e46902130e39a3907591b2dd475e7b8f0ed7b43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1641856700&rft_id=info:pmid/25519778&rfr_iscdi=true