Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and Safety of Tunneled Pleural Catheters in Adults with Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Systematic Review

Open access
Van Meter, Margaret E. M., McKee, Kanako Y., Kohlwes, R. Jeffrey·2011·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusions (MPE) are a frequent cause of dyspnea and discomfort at the end of cancer patients' lives. The tunneled indwelling pleural catheter (TIPC) was approved by the FDA in 1997 and has been investigated as a treatment for MPE. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published data on the efficacy and safety of the TIPC for treatment of MPE. DESIGN: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases to identify studies published through October 2009 that reported outcomes in adult patients with MPE treated with a TIPC. Data were aggregated using summary statistics when outcomes were described in the same way among multiple primary studies. MAIN MEASURES: Symptomatic improvement and complications associated with use of the TIPC. KEY RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a total of 1,370 patients met criteria for inclusion in the review. Only one randomized study directly compared the TIPC with the current gold standard treatment, pleurodesis. All other studies were case series. Symptomatic improvement was reported in 628/657 patients (95.6%). Quality of life measurements were infrequently reported. Spontaneous pleurodesis occurred in 430/943 patients (45.6%). Serious complications were rare and included empyema in 33/1168 patients (2.8%), pneumothorax requiring a chest tube in 3/51 (5.9%), and unspecified pneumothorax in 17/439 (3.9%). Minor complications included cellulitis in 32/935 (3.4%), obstruction/clogging in 33/895 (3.7%) and unspecified malfunction of the catheter in 11/121 (9.1%). The use of the TIPC was without complication in 517/591 patients (87.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-quality evidence in the form of case series, the TIPC may improve symptoms for patients with MPE and does not appear to be associated with major complications. Prospective randomized studies comparing the TIPC to pleurodesis are needed before the TIPC can be definitively recommended as a first-line treatment of MPE.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-010-1472-0

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Van Meter, M. E. M., McKee, K. Y., & Kohlwes, R. J.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2010-08-10
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
70-76
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1982344314
Cited by
287
References
2
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy and Safety of Tunneled Pleural Catheters in Adults with Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11606-010-1472-0
The paper
Van Meter, M. E. M., McKee, K. Y., & Kohlwes, R. J. (2011). Efficacy and Safety of Tunneled Pleural Catheters in Adults with Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Systematic Review. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1472-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.