Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 30;16(4):e0250929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250929

Systematic review and meta-analysis on juvenile primary spontaneous pneumothorax: Conservative or surgical approach first?

Chun-Shan Hung 1, Yang-Ching Chen 2,3, Ten-Fang Yang 4,5, Fu-Huan Huang 4,6,*
Editor: Christopher Cao7
PMCID: PMC8087103  PMID: 33930078

Abstract

Background

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) prevalence is typically higher in juvenile patients than in adults. We aimed to evaluate the optimal treatment for primary spontaneous pneumothorax and its efficacy and safety in juveniles.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for eligible studies published from database inception to October 10, 2020, and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary and secondary outcomes were recurrence rate and hospital stay length, respectively. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences were used for quantitatively analyzing binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. In total, nine retrospective studies with 1,452 juvenile patients (aged <21) were included for the quantitative analysis. The surgical approach led to a lower recurrence rate than did conservative approaches (OR: 1.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.15–3.32). Moreover, the recurrence rate was low in patients who underwent conservative treatment first and received surgery later.

Conclusions

Surgical approach for first-line management might have a greater effect on recurrence prevention than do conservative approaches. An upfront surgery might be an optimal choice for juvenile primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

Introduction

Spontaneous pneumothorax can be classified as primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) and secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. PSP, defined as pneumothorax without underlying lung disease, occurs frequently in men with a tall and thin body habitus. PSP is rarely encountered in young children, with an incidence of 3.4 per 100,000 children aged <18 years [1]. Because relatively few studies have focused on children, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of PSP in this age group warrant further investigation.

Four general approaches are used for the initial management of patients with PSP: (A) observation only, (B) oxygen supplementation, (C) drainage through needle aspiration or chest tube placement, and (D) immediate operation, most commonly video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Certain groups of experts advocate early surgical approach for definite disease resolution [2, 3]. However, some professionals reserve surgery for persistent air leaks or recurrent PSP [4, 5]. Furthermore, no evidence-based pediatric-specific guidelines for spontaneous pneumothorax management exist and guidelines for adult patients have been applied to the pediatric population [6, 7].

Some patients with PSP experienced recurrence even after surgery. Although PSP recurrence pathophysiology remains uncertain, it appears to be age related. A review of a Taiwanese nationwide database [8] revealed an age-stratified incidence and 1-year PSP recurrence rate that has been demonstrated to decrease with age, especially greater than 21. Moreover, the recurrence rates of PSP after conservative and operation management were 23.74% and 14.14% respectively.

Due to the inconsistency and lack of evidence, substantial variations existed in the approaches used for the initial PSP management. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the up-to-date literature to investigate the effectiveness of the surgical approach compared with conservative approaches (such as supplemental oxygen, pigtail, and chest tube) as the initial treatment for PSP in juvenile patients (aged<21).

Materials and methods

This prospective systematic review was initiated on September 29, 2020, and the study protocol was designed in advance. The primary design was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020212606). The study group included a pediatric surgeon and researcher experienced in systematic review and meta-analysis. This study conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for evidence selection, quality assessment, evidence synthesis, and research reporting [9].

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they (1) were randomized controlled trials or prospective or retrospective studies with recurrence rate outcome, (2) included a juvenile population (age < 21 years) with PSP diagnosis, and (3) compared the surgical and conservative approaches for PSP treatment. No language criterion was applied to the studies. Case reports, reviews, commentaries, and conference abstracts were excluded.

Search strategy and study selection

The keywords were combined using appropriate Boolean operators, and a primary search strategy was developed without limitations regarding language and published data. The primary search strategy involved a PubMed search, which was adapted to Embase and Cochrane database (S1 Table). The final search was completed on October 10, 2020. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for undetected relevant studies. The literature search and all retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two authors (F.H.H. and C.S.H.).

Data extraction

In total, 210 duplications were eliminated, and the titles and abstracts of the remaining studies were screened to remove irrelevant articles. Two reviewers (F.H.H. and C.S.H.) independently extracted data from all the included studies. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by another author (Y.C.C). Data regarding the sample size, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay after different interventions (including conservative and surgery approaches) were extracted.

Quality assessment

Each study’s methodological quality was evaluated using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies (ROBINS-I) tool [10], which assesses the quality of nonrandomized case–control studies. The scoring system contains three major domains (preintervention, intervention, and postintervention) and overall risk of biased judgments (low, moderate, severe, and critical). Results were independently reviewed and discussed by two authors (F.H.H. and C.S.H.). The ROBINS-I quality assessment is presented in S2 Table.

Primary and secondary outcomes

The primary outcome was PSP recurrence rate after PSP management with either conservative or surgical approach. Odds ratios (ORs) were used for determining the effect size. The secondary outcome was the length of hospital stay and mean differences were used for analysis.

Statistical analysis

The OR and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for binary data. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified based on their I2 value: an I2 of >75%, >50%, and <25% was considered to indicate high, moderate, and low heterogeneity, respectively [11]. A random effect model was applied for all analyses. Two-sided P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Review Manager (version 5.3; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) and R studio for Microsoft Windows (version 1.2.5001) were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Study characteristics

Fig 1 illustrates the study screening and selection process. The initial screen yielded 2,639 citations. After the exclusion of duplicate articles (n = 210), 2,429 citation records remained. Thereafter, on the basis of title and abstract screening of these records, 2,403 ineligible studies were excluded. Full texts of 26 articles were assessed to determine their eligibility, and 17 citation records (1 case report, 6 conference reports, 4 not involving PSP, and 6 with insufficient data to compute an effect size) were excluded. No randomized controlled trials were found during this literature search. Finally, nine studies [3, 4, 6, 12–17] were included in the meta-analysis.

Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

The nine studies were retrospective studies on 1,452 patients, enrolled over 1964–2015, conducted in Israel (one study), the United States (five studies), Hong Kong (one study), Australia (one study), and France (one study). Four studies [3, 4, 14, 15] included patients aged <18 years, whereas the remaining studies applied a varied range of patient age: 10–18 [16], 11–17 [17], 10–19 [6], 5–20 [12], and 12–21 [11] years. Baseline patient characteristics of all nine studies are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Study characteristics.

Author (year) Area Study type Total number of patients (n) Patient numbers classified by treatments(n) Mean age (years) Study period Follow up (years) Quality
Davis (1993) [17] Australia R 12 (6 males, 50%) Thoracotomy:6 Chest tube:6 14.8 1964–1989 N/A 1 low risk
5 moderate
1 serious
Qureshi (2005) [4] United States R 43 Primary VATS:14 Chest tube:37 15.9 (0.35) 1991–2003 N/A 1 low risk
5 moderate
1 serious
Hui (2006) [16] Hong Kong R 63 (55 males, 87%) Surgical treatment:15 Chest tube:48 16.5 (1.3) 1997–2003 0.4 to 6.9 1 low risk
6 moderate
Nathan (2010) [15] France R 25 (17 males, 68%) Primary VATS:12 14.2 (1.9) 2000–2007 3.7 ± 2 1 low risk
Chest tube:13 6 moderate
Seguier-Lipszyc (2011) [3] Israel R 46 (40 males, 87%) Primary VATS:10 16.2 1999–2009 Primary VATS: 5.1 ± 3.3 1 low risk
Oxygen alone:18 Oxygen alone: 5.4 ± 3.5 6 moderate
Chest tube:18 Chest tube: 5.5 ± 2.6
Lopez (2014) [14] USA R 96 (76 males, 79%) Primary VATS:10 16.6 2005–2011 1 6 moderate
Oxygen alone:25 1 serious
Pig tail:24
Chest tube:49
Williams (2017) [6] USA R 1,040 (854 males, 82.1%) VATS:207 15.7 (1.7) 2010–2014 N/A 1 low risk
No intervention:336 6 moderate
Chest tube:497
Soler (2018) [13] USA R 81 (61 males, 75%) Primary VATS:14 17.1 (2.6) 2002–2014 N/A 1 low risk
Observation only:33 5 moderate
Pig tail:15 1 serious
Chest tube:18
Williams (2018) [12] USA R 46 (41 males, 89%) Primary VATS:10 16.1 (1.3) 2007–2015 N/A 1 low risk
Observation only:8 5 moderate
1 serious
Chest tube:28
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: R, retrospective; VATS, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Conservative approach versus surgical approach as first-line management

Analyses were performed to examine the different recurrence rates between conservative and primary surgical approaches as the first-line management of PSP (Fig 2). The results showed that the surgical approach has a lower recurrence rate than the conservative approach (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.15–3.32, P = 0.01). The total heterogeneity among the studies was nonsignificant (I2 = 22%, P = 0.22). The recurrence incidences are 42.12% and 26.95% in the conservative and primary surgical approach group, respectively.

Fig 2. Recurrence rate of conservative approaches versus surgical approach as first-line management.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

A subgroup analysis was performed to investigate whether different conservative approaches (observation only, oxygen support, pig tail catheter, and chest tube insertion) affect the recurrence rate: Observation alone versus primary surgical approach was analyzed in two trials [12, 13], involving 41 patients who were under observation only and 24 who underwent primary surgery, with no significant differences between the two groups (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 0.51–6.26, P = 0.37). Heterogeneity among the studies showed no significant differences (I2 = 0%, P = 0.35).

Oxygen supplement versus primary surgical approach was analyzed in two studies [3, 18], involving 43 patients who underwent oxygen supplementation only and 20 who underwent primary surgery, with no statistical differences between the two groups (OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 0.43–9.90, P = 0.37). Heterogeneity among the studies did not reveal significant differences (I2 = 45%, P = 0.18).

Pig tail versus primary surgical approach was reported in two studies [13, 18], including 39 patients with pig tail insertion and 24 who underwent primary surgery, but the difference was nonsignificant (OR = 2.02, 95% CI, 0.64–6.42, P = 0.23). Heterogeneity was not significant among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.34).

Chest tube versus primary surgical approach were analyzed in seven studies [3, 4, 12–15, 17], involving 292 patients with chest tube insertion and 73 who underwent surgery. The recurrence number in the two groups did not differ significantly (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.83–5.16, P = 0.12), and no significant heterogeneity existed among the groups (I2 = 49%, P = 0.07).

Conservative approaches only versus surgical approach after conservative approaches

The outcomes are shown Fig 3, with three studies included [12, 16, 18]. In total, 160 patients underwent only conservative intervention, and 64 patients underwent surgery after the conservative intervention. The results showed that the surgical approach after conservative approaches has a lower recurrence rate than conservative approaches only (OR = 4.10, 95% CI = 1.38–12.23, P = 0.01). The total heterogeneity was not significant among the studies (I2 = 28%, P = 0.25). Conservative approaches group has a recurrence rate of 36.25% and 10.93% for surgery after the conservative intervention group.

Fig 3. Recurrence rate of conservative approaches only versus surgical approach after initial conservative approaches.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Length of hospital stay

The length of hospital stay was reported in three studies [3, 6, 12], comparing the length of hospital stay after conservative treatment and surgery (Fig 4). In total, 1,113 patients were included (883 and 230 patients underwent conservative invention and surgery, respectively). The forest plot revealed no significant differences (mean difference = −1.74, 95% CI = −3.63 to 0.15, P = 0.07). Heterogeneity was significant among the studies (I2 = 90%; P < 0.0001).

Fig 4. Length of hospital stay.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Publication bias detection

The outcomes are shown in Fig 5. In total, 13 subgroups were included. Studies were spread evenly on both sides of the average, indicating the absence of any publication bias.

Fig 5. Publication bias.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review available articles that compare the effectiveness of different procedures as first-line management of PSP in the juvenile population. Considering our main outcome, our meta-analysis showed that as first-line management for PSP in young people, the surgical approach led to a significantly lower recurrence rate than did the conservative approaches.

Pneumothorax management has not been completely standardized, particularly for children. Supplemental oxygen use is based on limited evidence from small studies involving adult patients and animal models [19, 20]. A hypothesis states that the inhalation of a high concentration of oxygen might increase the absorption rate of gas from the pleural cavity. A small clinical study around the 1970s revealed that adults administered 100% supplemental oxygen therapy demonstrated a fourfold increase in the mean absorption rate [21]. In an observational study, PSP patients aged approximately 19 years benefited from oxygen therapy, which increased the PSP resolution rate [22]. However, for neonates, the use of 100% oxygen in pneumothorax treatment indicated little to no advantage compared with the use of room air alone [23].

Of all the PSP treatment methods, chest tube drainage and simple aspiration are the most popular first choices for adult patients with the first episode of PSP and were both applied in juvenile pneumothorax. Needle aspiration was preferred to tube drainage according to the British Thoracic Society (BTS) pleural disease guideline in 2010 [24] due to the equal outcomes of the two procedures but shorter length of hospital stay after needle aspiration. However, American College of Chest Physicians emphasized chest tube drain as the first-line management because of the lower risk of persistent air leaking and additional procedures in chest tube drain than in needle aspiration [25]. In current practice, patients with PSP with respiratory distress receive needle aspiration or tube drainage first [13, 15, 26]. Surgery is indicated when persistent air leakage occurs [12–16, 26].

Because of a lack of sufficient pediatric data, PSP is managed according to adult BTS guidelines. Soccorso [7] performed a retrospective review, following BTS guidelines of PSP management in children. Notably, the results revealed that the guidelines are not applicable to children with large PSP and a relevantly high recurrence rate (36%) after the nonsurgical treatment.

Among studies we included in this meta-analysis, there was no major complication mentioned in the surgery intervention group (including VATS, thoracotomy, initial surgery and surgery after failed conservative procedure). The role of surgical intervention remains controversial. Most surgeons nowadays consider surgery after persistent air leaks or recurrent PSP. Whether immediate surgery ensures recurrence prevention remains uncertain. Because it has been widely applied in thoracic surgery, VATS is accepted as a safer and more feasible PSP management procedure compared with open thoracotomy[27–29], particularly in children with PSP [4, 5, 30]. Although some evidence has indicated VATS may be associated with recurrence risk [26, 30], it still plays an important role in juvenile PSP treatment. Furthermore, pneumothorax recurrence risk is not associated with surgical failure per se but with the potential new bulla formation [30]. The rapid growth in vertical rather than horizontal dimension can affect the pressure at the lung apex and prompt new bullae formation [31]. Weaver et al. [32] performed a morphometric analysis between rib cage and age, indicating that the overall size of the rib cage increased in three dimensions from 6 months to 20 years and only slightly increased from 20 to 30 years. The horizontal rib cage growth rate is faster than anterior–posterior and lateral dimensions before the age of 20 years. After age 30 years, the rib cage will gradually become round in shape to form a barrel-like structure. Interestingly, this result concurs with a review of Taiwanese PSP [8]. The PSP incidence and 1-year recurrence rate both decrease significantly once patients reach 20 years of age.

According to the 2010 adult BTS guideline, adult patients undergo different nonoperative approaches according to their clinical condition: disease stability and pneumothorax size [24]. Current practice of PSP management among the American Pediatric Surgical Association members was reviewed in 2019 [33], which showed a great variation in management between VATS timing. Moreover, surgeons prefer performing VATS if the initial conservative management fails [33]. However, in young patients, primary VATS can decrease the recurrence rate and even the length of hospital stay compared with conservative approaches [29, 34]. Williams et al. stated that in most pediatric patients, a definitive surgical management is required even after the initial conservative treatment [6, 12]. Lopez et al. found that the initial nonoperative management of patients with PSP resulted in longer lengths of hospital stay (median: 11 vs 5 days, P < 0.001). Moreover, more than one-third (37%) of the 108 patients after the initial nonoperative management eventually required VATS during their hospitalization [14].

Cook et al. reported the different costs involved in the initial surgical intervention for PSP and surgery for recurrence after nonoperative management in 15 patients. The costs were US$213,373 and US$229,576, respectively [35]. A single-center, evidence-based protocol was developed in 2019 for the management of pediatric patients with PSP. The average length of hospital stay decreased from 4.5 to 2.9 days. An early surgery was performed when nonsurgical methods failed or persistent air leak occurred for 2 days. Moreover, the overall cost decreased due to less radiology cost [36]. In this study, the length of hospital stay varied in our selected studies [3, 12]. This could be due to variation in the observation duration before undergoing surgery. Some were operated after 3 days, but some waited for at least 5 days [12, 33]. As aforementioned, most young patients with PSP eventually need surgical management. Given the recurrence rate, financial expense, and length of hospital stay, surgical intervention might be considered an initial and feasible option for PSP management in children and adolescents.

Computed tomography scan is more sensitive than plain radiography for bleb detection because only 15% of the blebs are detected through plain chest radiography [37]. Furthermore, some studies have reported the size and number of blebs correlated with the likelihood of PSP recurrence [38–40]. Owing to a lack of relevant data in these selected studies, we could not analyze the correlation of bleb size and recurrence rate to determine the optimal approach. Miscia et al. [41] reported recurrence rate in children with bullae compared with those with no bullae detected based on a computed tomography scan. The recurrence rate is compatible between the groups, indicating that the presence of bullae noted in computed tomography images is not an appropriate parameter for PSP recurrence.

Regarding our main outcome, each subgroup of different conservative approaches and surgical approach showed similar recurrence rate, but only a few studies were included in our separated subgroups. When we analyzed the nonsurgical and surgical group recurrence rates as a whole, with increasing sample size, the group with surgery as the first-line treatment had a lower recurrence rate. Furthermore, in patients who underwent conservative treatment first and received surgery later, the recurrence rate was lower than in those who received nonsurgical treatment. Therefore, surgery might be a safe and sufficient first-line management intervention for juvenile PSP. Moreover, it is the optimal choice for patients with persistent air leakage or recurrent PSP after the nonsurgical treatment.

Several studies [3, 13, 18] included in this meta-analysis have selected mechanical pleurodesis as an adjunctive procedure. Mechanical pleurodesis was performed through mechanical abrasion of pleural surfaces or partial removal of parietal pleura, which creates adhesion between the two membrane layers in the pleural cavity [42]. Bialas et al. [43] demonstrated that mechanical and chemical pleurodesis with blebectomy have comparable outcomes. Moreover, a Taiwan study showed that pleurodesis reduces the recurrence rate and the need for further surgical intervention in pediatric PSP [44]. Although the ideal area and size of abrasion are still under debate, we expect better adhesion after extensive abrasion [45]. Some studies reported that the complication included postoperative dull chest pain, bleeding, or hemothorax [45, 46]. The postoperative complication may explain the prolonged length of hospital stay in our study’s surgical approach group.

Huang et al. reported only 3.1% of PSP patients experienced recurrence more than four years after the initial occurrence and recommended five years as an adequate follow-up duration [8]. Some of our included studies performed in patient follow-up less than five years. Whereas most studies had follow-up duration around five years.

We, however, acknowledge the limitations of this study. Firstly, all the articles included in this research were retrospective, thereby resulting in more risk of bias. Secondly, some studies included Marfan syndrome or cystic fibrosis or patients with smoking habit with spontaneous pneumothorax as PSP. Thirdly, there is no consensus guidelines for management of PSP, the intervention selection is based on doctors’ preference. With different PSP definitions, intervention strategies and follow up durations, there was significant risk of bias in some of the included studies and led to weaker strength of our recommendation. Fourthly, is the small sample size of our study. One study [6] we included had a large sample but was not included in our PSP recurrence rate analysis because authors did not perform primary surgery as their intervention. Rest of the studies in this meta-analysis reporting the primary outcome had <100 patients. The small sample size reduces the statistic power of this study. Finally, some patients included in the studies were not first-episode PSP patients. Owing to a lack of medical history, we could not analyze treatment outcomes between PSP recurrence and first-episode PSP. Randomized controlled trials comparing surgical and nonsurgical management are needed in future to provide further evidence for juvenile-specific PSP guidelines.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the surgical approach and conservative intervention as the initial management strategy for juvenile PSP. We found that the surgical approach as first-line management might lead to better recurrence prevention than the conservative procedure. Moreover, the surgical approach after failed conservative management leads to a low recurrence rate. In general, an upfront surgery might be considered an optimal strategy for juvenile PSP management.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (12.7KB, docx)
S2 Table. Quality assessment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (22.8KB, docx)
S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file. (63KB, doc)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Dotson K. and Johnson L.H., Pediatric spontaneous pneumothorax. Pediatr Emerg Care, 2012. 28(7): p. 715–20; quiz 721–3. 10.1097/PEC.0b013e31825d2dd5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Butterworth S.A., et al., An open and shut case for early VATS treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 2007. 50(3): p. 171–174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Seguier-Lipszyc E., et al., Management of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Children. Clinical Pediatrics, 2011. 50(9): p. 797–802. 10.1177/0009922811404699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Qureshi F.G., et al., Primary vs delayed surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax in children: which is better? J Pediatr Surg, 2005. 40(1): p. 166–9. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.09.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lee L.P., et al., Management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in Chinese children. Hong Kong Med J, 2010. 16(2): p. 94–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Williams K., et al., Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Children: National Management Strategies and Outcomes. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2018. 28(2): p. 218–222. 10.1089/lap.2017.0467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Soccorso G., et al., Management of large primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children: radiological guidance, surgical intervention and proposed guideline. Pediatr Surg Int, 2015. 31(12): p. 1139–44. 10.1007/s00383-015-3787-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Huang Y.H., et al., An Age-Stratified Longitudinal Study of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax. J Adolesc Health, 2017. 61(4): p. 527–532. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liberati A., et al., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 2009. 6(7): p. e1000100. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sterne J.A., et al., ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Bmj, 2016. 355: p. i4919. 10.1136/bmj.i4919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Higgins J.P.T., et al., Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 2003. 327(7414): p. 557. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Williams K., et al., Optimal timing of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children. J Pediatr Surg, 2018. 53(9): p. 1858–1861. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.11.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Soler L.M., et al., Initial primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children and adolescents: Operate or wait? J Pediatr Surg, 2018. 53(10): p. 1960–1963. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.12.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lopez M.E., et al., Management of the pediatric spontaneous pneumothorax: is primary surgery the treatment of choice? The American Journal of Surgery, 2014. 208(4): p. 571–576. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nathan N., et al., Efficacy of blebs detection for preventive surgery in children’s idiopathic spontaneous pneumothorax. World J Surg, 2010. 34(1): p. 185–9. 10.1007/s00268-009-0286-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hui Y.W., et al., Adolescent Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax: A Hospital’s Experience. Hong Kong Journal of Paediatrics, 2006. 11. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Davis A.M., Wensley D.F., and Phelan P.D., Spontaneous pneumothorax in paediatric patients. Respir Med, 1993. 87(7): p. 531–4. 10.1016/0954-6111(93)90009-o [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lopez M.E., et al., Management of the pediatric spontaneous pneumothorax: is primary surgery the treatment of choice? Am J Surg, 2014. 208(4): p. 571–6. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hill R.C., et al., Resolution of experimental pneumothorax in rabbits by oxygen therapy. Ann Thorac Surg, 1995. 59(4): p. 825–7; discussion 827–8. 10.1016/0003-4975(95)00007-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chadha T.S. and Cohn M.A., Noninvasive treatment of pneumothorax with oxygen inhalation. Respiration, 1983. 44(2): p. 147–52. 10.1159/000194541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Northfield T.C., Oxygen therapy for spontaneous pneumothorax. Br Med J, 1971. 4(5779): p. 86–8. 10.1136/bmj.4.5779.86 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Park C.B., et al., Does oxygen therapy increase the resolution rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax? Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. 9(12): p. 5239–5243. 10.21037/jtd.2017.10.149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Clark S.D., et al., Administration of 100% oxygen does not hasten resolution of symptomatic spontaneous pneumothorax in neonates. J Perinatol, 2014. 34(7): p. 528–31. 10.1038/jp.2014.55 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.MacDuff A., Arnold A., and Harvey J., Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: British Thoracic Society pleural disease guideline 2010. Thorax, 2010. 65(Suppl 2): p. ii18. 10.1136/thx.2010.136986 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Baumann M.H., et al., Management of spontaneous pneumothorax: an American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement. Chest, 2001. 119(2): p. 590–602. 10.1378/chest.119.2.590 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zganjer M., et al., Primary spontaneous pneumothorax in pediatric patients: our 7-year experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2010. 20(2): p. 195–8. 10.1089/lap.2009.0070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hatz R.A., et al., Long-term results after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for first-time and recurrent spontaneous pneumothorax. Ann Thorac Surg, 2000. 70(1): p. 253–7. 10.1016/s0003-4975(00)01411-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chen J.Y., et al., [Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for spontaneous pneumothorax ]. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi, 2003. 26(4): p. 227–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sawada S., Watanabe Y., and Moriyama S., Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: evaluation of indications and long-term outcome compared with conservative treatment and open thoracotomy. Chest, 2005. 127(6): p. 2226–30. 10.1378/chest.127.6.2226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Choi S.Y., et al., Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children. Pediatr Surg Int, 2013. 29(5): p. 505–9. 10.1007/s00383-013-3273-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fujino S., et al., Physical development of surgically treated patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Chest, 1999. 116(4): p. 899–902. 10.1378/chest.116.4.899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Weaver A.A., Schoell S.L., and Stitzel J.D., Morphometric analysis of variation in the ribs with age and sex. Journal of anatomy, 2014. 225(2): p. 246–261. 10.1111/joa.12203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Williams K., et al., Current Practice in the Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2019. 29(4): p. 551–556. 10.1089/lap.2018.0629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chambers A. and Scarci M., In patients with first-episode primary spontaneous pneumothorax is video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery superior to tube thoracostomy alone in terms of time to resolution of pneumothorax and incidence of recurrence? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg, 2009. 9(6): p. 1003–8. 10.1510/icvts.2009.216473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cook C.H., et al., A cost-effective thoracoscopic treatment strategy for pediatric spontaneous pneumothorax. Surgical Endoscopy, 1999. 13(12): p. 1208–1210. 10.1007/pl00009622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lawrence A.E., et al., Improving care through standardized treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 2020. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.09.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Warner B.W., Bailey W.W., and Shipley R.T., Value of computed tomography of the lung in the management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. The American Journal of Surgery, 1991. 162(1): p. 39–42. 10.1016/0002-9610(91)90199-n [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tamura M., Ohta Y., and Sato H., Thoracoscopic Appearance of Bilateral Spontaneous Pneumothorax. Chest, 2003. 124(6): p. 2368–2371. 10.1378/chest.124.6.2368 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sihoe A.D.L., et al., Can CT Scanning Be Used To Select Patients With Unilateral Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax for Bilateral Surgery? Chest, 2000. 118(2): p. 380–383. 10.1378/chest.118.2.380 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Desai S. and Wilson A., Pleura and pleural disorders. Imaging of diseases of the chest. 3rd ed. London: Mosby, 2000: p. 727–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Miscia M.E., et al., Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Pediatr Surg, 2020. 30(1): p. 2–12. 10.1055/s-0039-3402522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Berger R., Pleurodesis For Spontaneous Pneumothorax: Will the Procedure of Choice Please Stand Up? CHEST, 1994. 106(4): p. 992–994. 10.1378/chest.106.4.992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bialas R.C., Weiner T.M., and Phillips J.D., Video-assisted thoracic surgery for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children: is there an optimal technique? J Pediatr Surg, 2008. 43(12): p. 2151–5. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.08.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Chan I.-C., et al., The influence of pleurodesis on the outcome of primary spontaneous pneumothorax in children. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 2019. 82(4): p. 305–311. 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Park J.S., et al., Pleural Abrasion for Mechanical Pleurodesis in Surgery for Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax: Is it Effective? Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 2012. 22(1): p. 62–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lang-Lazdunski L., et al., Videothoracoscopic bleb excision and pleural abrasion for the treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: long-term results. Ann Thorac Surg, 2003. 75(3): p. 960–5. 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)04544-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Christopher Cao

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-03770

Systematic review and meta-analysis on juvenile primary spontaneous pneumothorax: conservative or surgical approach first?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christopher Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors set out to perform a systematic review of the literature to examine whether early surgical intervention is superior to conservative management for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) in juvenile patients (aged <21 years). The authors performed a meta-analysis of the included studies.

There are currently two major international guidelines on the management of PSP: the British Thoracic Society guidelines, last updated 2010, and the American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement, published in 2001. Both guidelines pertain to the management of PSP in adults, and these recommendations are frequently extrapolated to juvenile patients. Current guidelines suggest referral for potential surgical intervention in the following instances: 1) second ipsilateral pneumothorax; 2) first contralateral pneumothorax; 3) synchronous bilateral pneumothorax; 4) persistent air leak (>5-7 days); 5) professions at risk (divers, pilots); 6) pregnancy.

There are several options for conservative management, including observation alone, application of supplemental O₂ (100%), needle aspiration, and chest tube drainage.

This study aims to examine the current literature to determine the incidence rate of recurrent primary spontaneous pneumothorax following conservative management and surgical intervention. If surgical intervention greatly reduces the incidence of recurrence, then an argument could be made to offer surgical intervention in first episode PSP.

Strengths

• The study protocol was registered with prospectively with PROSPERO

• A comprehensive database search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Nine studies were included in the final systematic review and meta-analysis.

• No language restrictions were employed in the search

• Two independent reviewers screened title/abstract and extracted the data

Major issues

1. There was significant risk of bias in the included studies, this was documented in the supplementary table (S1) but was not mentioned in the results or considered in the discussion when making a recommendation based on the results.

2. The background incidence of recurrence following conservative management and surgical intervention was not mentioned in the introduction and the calculated incidence of recurrence from the meta-analysis was not reported in the results. These two pieces of information are required for the reader to place the results in context.

3. (Lines 73-76) The search strategy needs to be reviewed and correctly documented; I doubt that the current strategy would yield useful results. I suspect the commas should be the OR operator, and OR should be AND.

4. (Table 1) The authors should document follow up. If the studies all have different lengths of follow up then their reported incidence of recurrence will likely change and therefore meta-analysis may not be appropriate.

5. There is no mention of the risk of major complication following surgical intervention. Any consideration of surgical intervention should weight the risk and benefit of the procedure. If the reduced risk of recurrence is equal to or exceeded by the risk of major morbidity then surgery should not recommended. There should be a brief mention of the risk of major complication in the discussion – this should be well documented in the literature.

6. The authors need to discuss the effect of the various biases present in the systematic review on the strength of their recommendation in the discussion section.

Minor issues

7. (Line 3) The authors have used the acronym ‘PSP’ without defining the term ‘primary spontaneous pneumothorax’

8. The eligibility criteria are not mentioned in the methods section of the abstract (juveniles aged <21)

9. (Lines 39-40) this sentence is grammatically incorrect, I think a word is missing e.g. “Furthermore, no evidence-based pediatric-specific guidelines for spontaneous pneumothorax management exist”

10. (Lines 45-46) these last two sentences could be better written as a single sentence.

11. (Lines 48-52) this statement should clearly define your Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. Intervention and outcome are mentioned, the Population should be better defined (patients aged <21) and the outcomes need to be mentioned (incidence of recurrence and hospital length of stay).

12. (Lines 57-58) previous works don’t need to be cited as evidence of experience with systematic reviews.

13. (Line 104) the authors should mention that the secondary outcome: hospital length of stay was assessed, and state whether mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range was used for analysis.

14. (Table 1) It may be worth including gender in the table if reported in the initial studies. It may also be worth breaking down the number of included patients to state how many underwent conservative management and how many underwent surgical intervention.

15. (Line 157) the authors refer to four groups, there should only be two: intervention and comparator.

16. (Line 161-168) it is unclear to me what is meant by “surgical approach after conservative approaches”. Are these patients who failed conservative management due to prolonged air leak, or had recurrent pneumothorax after conservative management?

17. A limitation of the study not mentioned is the small sample size of the included studies. One study, Williams 2017, had a large sample but only reported hospital length of stay. All the studies reporting the primary outcome had <100 patients. The potential effect of this bias on the magnitude of the treatment effect should be discussed.

18. Forest plots need headings

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please revise your PRISMA flow chart to ensure that you have included all of the reasons that full text articles were removed (listing how many were excluded for each reason).

3. Thank you for providing your search terms for your search. Please also provide the full electronic Boolean search strategy used to identify studies with all search terms and limits for at least one database. Please attach this as supplementary file.

4. Please reformat Table 1 for readability. Please also rename this table "Study Characteristics.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"NO. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary of the research and overall impression

The authors set out to perform a systematic review of the literature to examine whether early surgical intervention is superior to conservative management for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) in juvenile patients (aged <21 years). The authors performed a meta-analysis of the included studies.

There are currently two major international guidelines on the management of PSP: the British Thoracic Society guidelines, last updated 2010, and the American College of Chest Physicians Delphi consensus statement, published in 2001. Both guidelines pertain to the management of PSP in adults, and these recommendations are frequently extrapolated to juvenile patients. Current guidelines suggest referral for potential surgical intervention in the following instances: 1) second ipsilateral pneumothorax; 2) first contralateral pneumothorax; 3) synchronous bilateral pneumothorax; 4) persistent air leak (>5-7 days); 5) professions at risk (divers, pilots); 6) pregnancy.

There are several options for conservative management, including observation alone, application of supplemental O₂ (100%), needle aspiration, and chest tube drainage.

This study aims to examine the current literature to determine the incidence rate of recurrent primary spontaneous pneumothorax following conservative management and surgical intervention. If surgical intervention greatly reduces the incidence of recurrence, then an argument could be made to offer surgical intervention in first episode PSP.

Strengths

• The study protocol was registered with prospectively with PROSPERO

• A comprehensive database search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Nine studies were included in the final systematic review and meta-analysis.

• No language restrictions were employed in the search

• Two independent reviewers screened title/abstract and extracted the data

Major issues

1. There was significant risk of bias in the included studies, this was documented in the supplementary table (S1) but was not mentioned in the results or considered in the discussion when making a recommendation based on the results.

2. The background incidence of recurrence following conservative management and surgical intervention was not mentioned in the introduction and the calculated incidence of recurrence from the meta-analysis was not reported in the results. These two pieces of information are required for the reader to place the results in context.

3. (Lines 73-76) The search strategy needs to be reviewed and correctly documented; I doubt that the current strategy would yield useful results. I suspect the commas should be the OR operator, and OR should be AND.

4. (Table 1) The authors should document follow up. If the studies all have different lengths of follow up then their reported incidence of recurrence will likely change and therefore meta-analysis may not be appropriate.

5. There is no mention of the risk of major complication following surgical intervention. Any consideration of surgical intervention should weight the risk and benefit of the procedure. If the reduced risk of recurrence is equal to or exceeded by the risk of major morbidity then surgery should not recommended. There should be a brief mention of the risk of major complication in the discussion – this should be well documented in the literature.

6. The authors need to discuss the effect of the various biases present in the systematic review on the strength of their recommendation in the discussion section.

Minor issues

7. (Line 3) The authors have used the acronym ‘PSP’ without defining the term ‘primary spontaneous pneumothorax’

8. The eligibility criteria are not mentioned in the methods section of the abstract (juveniles aged <21)

9. (Lines 39-40) this sentence is grammatically incorrect; I think a word is missing e.g. “Furthermore, no evidence-based pediatric-specific guidelines for spontaneous pneumothorax management exist”

10. (Lines 45-46) these last two sentences could be better written as a single sentence.

11. (Lines 48-52) this statement should clearly define your Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome. Intervention and outcome are mentioned, the Population should be better defined (patients aged <21) and the outcomes need to be mentioned (incidence of recurrence and hospital length of stay).

12. (Lines 57-58) previous works don’t need to be cited as evidence of experience with systematic reviews.

13. (Line 104) the authors should mention that the secondary outcome: hospital length of stay was assessed, and state whether mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range was used for analysis.

14. (Table 1) It may be worth including gender in the table if reported in the initial studies. It may also be worth breaking down the number of included patients to state how many underwent conservative management and how many underwent surgical intervention.

15. (Line 157) the authors refer to four groups, there should only be two: intervention and comparator.

16. (Line 161-168) it is unclear to me what is meant by “surgical approach after conservative approaches”. Are these patients who failed conservative management due to prolonged air leak, or had recurrent pneumothorax after conservative management?

17. A limitation of the study not mentioned is the small sample size of the included studies. One study, Williams 2017, had a large sample but only reported hospital length of stay. All the studies reporting the primary outcome had <100 patients. The potential effect of this bias on the magnitude of the treatment effect should be discussed.

18. Forest plots need headings

Recommendation

Acceptable for publication with major alterations.

I would be happy to review a revised manuscript.

ADDIT:

My response to the question: Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? I have selected 'I don't know' because it is currently unclear whether meta-analysis is appropriate. If, based on patient demographics and follow up, the studies are fairly homogenous then I would change my response to 'Yes'.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nicholas McNamara

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Review.docx

Click here for additional data file. (17KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 30;16(4):e0250929. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250929.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

28 Mar 2021

Thanks for your constructive suggestion; we have revised our manuscript as your suggestion and replied your question in " Response to reviewers".

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (22.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Christopher Cao

19 Apr 2021

Systematic review and meta-analysis on juvenile primary spontaneous pneumothorax: conservative or surgical approach first?

PONE-D-21-03770R1

Dear Dr. Huang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Christopher Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have adequately addressed the issues raised by the Reviewer.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The search strategy appears much more logical with the correct use of Boolean operators, however the placement of a few of the parentheses still appears incorrect.

2. (line 156) and (line 161-162) should say that there was no significant heterogeneity, rather than “heterogeneity showed no significant difference”. The wording of the results regarding heterogeneity is appropriate in all other paragraphs.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Christopher Cao

21 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-03770R1

Systematic review and meta-analysis on juvenile primary spontaneous pneumothorax: conservative or surgical approach first?

Dear Dr. Huang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Christopher Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Search strategy.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (12.7KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Quality assessment.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (22.8KB, docx)
    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

    (DOC)

    Click here for additional data file. (63KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS Review.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (17KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (22.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES