↓ Skip to main content

Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001001.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph EM van Agteren, Kristin V Carson, Leong Ung Tiong, Brian J Smith

Abstract

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) performed to treat patients with severe diffuse emphysema was reintroduced in the nineties. Lung volume reduction surgery aims to resect damaged emphysematous lung tissue, thereby increasing elastic properties of the lung. This treatment is hypothesised to improve long-term daily functioning and quality of life, although it may be costly and may be associated with risks of morbidity and mortality. Ten years have passed since the last version of this review was prepared, prompting us to perform an update. The objective of this review was to gather all available evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) versus non-surgical standard therapy in improving health outcomes for patients with severe diffuse emphysema. Secondary objectives included determining which subgroup of patients benefit from LVRS and for which patients LVRS is contraindicated, to establish the postoperative complications of LVRS and its morbidity and mortality, to determine which surgical approaches for LVRS are most effective and to calculate the cost-effectiveness of LVRS. We identified RCTs by using the Cochrane Airways Group Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) register, in addition to the online clinical trials registers. Searches are current to April 2016. We included RCTs that studied the safety and efficacy of LVRS in participants with diffuse emphysema. We excluded studies that investigated giant or bullous emphysema. Two independent review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. When possible, we combined data from more than one study in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software. We identified two new studies (89 participants) in this updated review. A total of 11 studies (1760 participants) met the entry criteria of the review, one of which accounted for 68% of recruited participants. The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate owing to an unclear risk of bias across many studies, lack of blinding and low participant numbers for some outcomes. Eight of the studies compared LVRS versus standard medical care, one compared two closure techniques (stapling vs laser ablation), one looked at the effect of buttressing the staple line on the effectiveness of LVRS and one compared traditional 'resectional' LVRS with a non-resectional surgical approach. Participants completed a mandatory course of pulmonary rehabilitation/physical training before the procedure commenced. Short-term mortality was higher for LVRS (odds ratio (OR) 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.22 to 11.79; 1489 participants; five studies; moderate-quality evidence) than for control, but long-term mortality favoured LVRS (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; 1280 participants; two studies; moderate-quality evidence). Participants identified post hoc as being at high risk of death from surgery were those with particularly impaired lung function, poor diffusing capacity and/or homogenous emphysema. Participants with upper lobe-predominant emphysema and low baseline exercise capacity showed the most favourable outcomes related to mortality, as investigators reported no significant differences in early mortality between participants treated with LVRS and those in the control group (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.29; 290 participants; one study), as well as significantly lower mortality at the end of follow-up for LVRS compared with control (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 290 participants; one study). Trials in this review furthermore provided evidence of low to moderate quality showing that improvements in lung function parameters other than forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life and exercise capacity were more likely with LVRS than with usual follow-up. Adverse events were more common with LVRS than with control, specifically the occurrence of (persistent) air leaks, pulmonary morbidity (e.g. pneumonia) and cardiovascular morbidity. Although LVRS leads to an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the procedure is relatively costly overall. Lung volume reduction surgery, an effective treatment for selected patients with severe emphysema, may lead to better health status and lung function outcomes, specifically for patients who have upper lobe-predominant emphysema with low exercise capacity, but the procedure is associated with risks of early mortality and adverse events.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 20%
Student > Bachelor 33 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 35 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 17%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 39 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,736,073
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,207
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,218
of 265,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 265,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.