Goodman 2006.

Methods	Single centre RCT evaluating duration of chest tube drainage after a talc slurry pleurodesis (UK)
Participants	Inclusion criteria: confirmed MPE requiring palliation of breathlessness due to the effusion (all cell types) Exclusion criteria: expected survival < 3 months; Karnofsky score < 40; previous unsuccessful pleurodesis; ipsilateral endobronchial obstruction; evidence of trapped lung 41 participants randomised
Interventions	All participants had 8 ‐ 14 Fr intercostal drain inserted under ultrasound guidance. 4 g talc slurry when effusion fully drained and trapped lung excluded on CXR In one group, drain removed after 24 hours. In the other group, drain removed at 72 hours. Drains removed regardless of fluid drainage
Outcomes	Pleurodesis failure at one month (defined according to fluid recurrence requiring repeat aspiration). Length of hospital stay. Mortality
Notes	People with trapped lung excluded from the study. Study didn't complete recruitment numbers required by the power calculation Participants who died in first month after randomisation excluded from the analysis Not included in network meta‐analysis
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed envelopes in random blocks of 10
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed envelopes in random blocks of 10
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible to blind due to nature of interventions (drain removal after 24 or 48 hours)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Need for repeat pleural interventions, length of stay may be biased by lack of blinding. Mortality data not biased
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Deaths within the first month well matched between the two arms (3 patients in each arm). No other LTFU
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All predefined outcomes reported. Unpublished data on complications provided by the authors
Other bias	Low risk	No other biases identified