| Title |
Chest Drain Size: the Debate Continues
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Pulmonology Reports, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13665-017-0162-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert J. Hallifax, Ioannis Psallidas, Najib M. Rahman |
| Abstract |
Small-bore chest tubes are widely used in the management of common pleural disease. Guidelines suggest that patients with malignant pleural effusions, pneumothorax and pleural infection may be successfully managed with small-bore drains. However, good quality data is often lacking. This article reviews the evidence for the treatment efficacy and potential adverse effects of different chest tube sizes. In a large randomised study, the small difference in pain scores between large and small drains was not clinically significant. However, small-bore chest tubes commonly suffer from blockage or inadvertent removal, and may not be as effective in providing successful pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusions. Although they may be effective in managing pleural infection, and less painful than large drains, small bore drains may be less effective for pleurodesis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 61% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,748,573
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Current Pulmonology Reports
#15
of 33 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,366
of 425,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pulmonology Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one scored the same or higher as 18 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them