Re: Small versus large bore chest tube in traumatic hemothorax, hemopneumothorax, and pneumothorax - external validity, endpoint heterogeneity, and trial sequential analysis assumptions
Abstract
Background: Granieri and colleagues compared small-caliber chest drains (14 Ch or smaller) with large-bore chest tubes (28 Ch or larger) for traumatic hemothorax, hemopneumothorax, and pneumothorax and combined conventional meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Main points: While the pooled effect estimate suggested no clear difference in treatment failure, clinical translation requires caution. First, the randomized trials largely represent selected, stable thoracic trauma rather than high-risk phenotypes (for example, massive hemothorax, ventilated patients, or severe polytrauma). Second, the primary endpoint ("failure") groups reinterventions that vary in clinical impact and are sensitive to local imaging and escalation thresholds (for example, second drain versus video-assisted surgery). Third, trial sequential analysis conclusions depend strongly on prespecified assumptions (baseline event rate and the smallest clinically important effect), which should be explicitly justified and, where possible, explored in sensitivity analyses.
Conclusion: These clarifications may reduce overgeneralization, better align conclusions with the included trial populations, and inform pragmatic multicenter trial design with standardized protocols and patient-centered outcomes.
MIDER Authors
Affiliations
George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, Nuneaton
Date
2026-01-08
Type
Correspondence
Collections
Citation
Ravikumar S. Re: Small versus large bore chest tube in traumatic hemothorax, hemopneumothorax, and pneumothorax-external validity, endpoint heterogeneity, and trial sequential analysis assumptions : Author. World J Emerg Surg. 2026 Jan 8;21(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13017-025-00669-5.
Journal / Source Title
PMID
Publisher
Publisher’s URL
Publisher’s statement
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.