Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 470

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline

Feller-Kopman, David J., Reddy, Chakravarthy B., DeCamp, Malcolm M., Diekemper, Rebecca L., Gould, Michael K., Henry, Travis, Iyer, Narayan P., Lee, Y. C. Gary, Lewis, Sandra Z., Maskell, Nick A., Rahman, Najib M., Sterman, Daniel H., Wahidi, Momen M., Balekian, Alex A.·2018·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This Guideline, a collaborative effort from the American Thoracic Society, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society of Thoracic Radiology, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to guide contemporary management of patients with a malignant pleural effusion (MPE). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel developed seven questions using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes) format. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework was applied to each question. Recommendations were formulated, discussed, and approved by the entire panel. RESULTS: The panel made weak recommendations in favor of: 1) using ultrasound to guide pleural interventions; 2) not performing pleural interventions in asymptomatic patients with MPE; 3) using either an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) or chemical pleurodesis in symptomatic patients with MPE and suspected expandable lung; 4) performing large-volume thoracentesis to assess symptomatic response and lung expansion; 5) using either talc poudrage or talc slurry for chemical pleurodesis; 6) using IPC instead of chemical pleurodesis in patients with nonexpandable lung or failed pleurodesis; and 7) treating IPC-associated infections with antibiotics and not removing the catheter. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide management of patients with MPE and improve patient outcomes.

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 · 10.1164/rccm.201807-1415st

Cites

47 of 47 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 47 references

Metadata

Authors
Feller-Kopman, D. J., Reddy, C. B., DeCamp, M. M., Diekemper, R. L., Gould, M. K., Henry, T., Iyer, N. P., Lee, Y. C. G., Lewis, S. Z., Maskell, N. A., Rahman, N. M., Sterman, D. H., Wahidi, M. M., & Balekian, A. A.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2018-10-01
Volume
198
Issue
7
Pages
839-849
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2894749894
Cited by
470
References
47
FWCI
29.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201807-1415st
The paper
Feller-Kopman, D. J., Reddy, C. B., DeCamp, M. M., Diekemper, R. L., Gould, M. K., Henry, T., Iyer, N. P., Lee, Y. C. G., Lewis, S. Z., Maskell, N. A., Rahman, N. M., Sterman, D. H., Wahidi, M. M., & Balekian, A. A. (2018). Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201807-1415st

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.