| Title |
Effectiveness of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using unilateral endobronchial valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s75314 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miyoung Choi, Worl Suk Lee, Min Lee, Kyeongman Jeon, Seungsoo Sheen, Sanghoon Jheon, Young Sam Kim |
| Abstract |
Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) can be suggested as an alternative for surgical lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema patients. This article intends to evaluate by systematic review the safety and effectiveness of BLVR using a one-way endobronchial valve. A systematic search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as eight domestic databases up to December 2013, was performed. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to selection criteria. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criterion was used to assess quality of literature. Data from randomized controlled trials were combined and meta-analysis was performed. This review included 15 studies. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) improved in the intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference [MD]=6.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.31-10.11). Six-minute walking distance (MD=15.66, 95% CI: 1.69-29.64) and cycle workload (MD=4.43, 95% CI: 1.80-7.07) also improved. In addition, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score decreased (MD=4.29, 95% CI: -6.87 to -1.71) in the intervention group. In a subgroup analysis of patients with complete fissure, the FEV1 change from baseline was higher in the BLVR group than in the control group for both 6 months (MD=15.28, P<0.001) and 12 months (MD=17.65, P<0.001), whereas for patients with incomplete fissure, FEV1 and 6-minute walking distance showed no change. One-year follow-up randomized controlled trials reported deaths, although the cause of death was not related to BLVR. Respiratory failure and pneumothorax incidence rates were relatively higher in the BLVR group, but the difference was not significant. BLVR may be an effective and safe procedure for the treatment of severe COPD patients with emphysema, based on existing studies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 64 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 22 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 November 2018.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,053
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,785
of 270,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 270,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.