Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tratamiento conservador versus intervencionista para el neumotórax espontáneo primario en adultos

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010565.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 18 diciembre 2014see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Atención crítica y de emergencia

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Michael Ashby

    Correspondencia a: Launceston Clinical School, Northern Integrated Care Service, Launceston General Hospital, South Launceston, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Greg Haug

    Department of Medicine, Launceston General Hospital, Launceston, Australia

  • Pete Mulcahy

    Launceston General Hospital, DHHS, Mt Nelson, Australia

  • Kathryn J Ogden

    Launceston Clinical School, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia

  • Oliver Jensen

    Launceston Clinical School, University of Tasmania Medical Faculty, South Launceston, Australia

  • Julia AE Walters

    La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Contributions of authors

Michael Ashby (MA), Pete Mulcahy (PM), Kathryn J Ogden (KO), Greg Haug (GH), Oliver Jensen (OJ), Julia Walters (JW).
Conceiving the review: GH
Co‐ordinating the review: MA
Undertaking manual searches: MA, OJ, PM
Screening search results: MA, OJ, PM, KO
Organizing retrieval of papers: KO
Screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria: MA, PM, KO, GH
Appraising quality of papers: MA, OJ, PM, GH
Abstracting data from papers: MA, KO
Writing to authors of papers for additional information: KO
Providing additional data about papers: KO
Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: KO, MA
Data management for the review: KO, MA, JW
Entering data into Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.3): MA, PM
RevMan statistical data: KO, JW
Other statistical analysis not using RevMan: KO, JW
Interpretation of data: KO, GH, MA, OJ, PM, JW
Statistical inferences: KO, JW
Writing the review: MA, KO, GH, PM
Securing funding for the review: N/A
Guarantor for the review (one author): MA
Person responsible for reading and checking review before submission: KO

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Department of Medicine, Launceston General Hospital, Australia.

    Home Institute

  • University of Tasmania, Australia.

    Launceston Clinical School

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Michael Ashby: none known
Greg Haug: none known
Pete Mulcahy: none known
Kathryn J Ogden: none known
Oliver Jensen: none known
Julia Walters: none known

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ronan O'Sullivan (content editor), Cathal Walsh (statistical editor), Steven A Sahn and Andrew MacDuff (peer reviewers) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of the protocol for the systematic review.

We would like to thank Ronan O'Sullivan (content editor) and Andrew MacDuff (peer reviewer) for their help and editorial advice during the preparation of the systematic review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Dec 18

Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults

Review

Michael Ashby, Greg Haug, Pete Mulcahy, Kathryn J Ogden, Oliver Jensen, Julia AE Walters

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010565.pub2

2013 Jun 06

Conservative versus interventional management for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults

Protocol

Michael Ashby, Greg Haug, Pete Mulcahy, Kathryn J Ogden, Oliver Jensen

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010565

Differences between protocol and review

We planned to include a 'Summary of findings' table and to include the following outcomes: immediate success, failure of treatment, mortality, early and late recurrence, complications and length of hospital stay. Given there were no included studies in this review, we were unable to create a 'Summary of findings' table (Ashby 2013), but we plan to include one when we update the review.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva