Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (883 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Aspiration of fluid or air from the thoracic cavity. It is coupled sometimes with the administration of drugs into the pleural cavity.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Thoracenteses; Pleurocentesis; Pleurocenteses; Chest Aspiration; Aspiration, Chest; Aspirations, Chest; Chest Aspirations; Pleural Aspiration.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Paracentesis
- See also
- Pleural Effusion; Pneumothorax
Related concepts
- Thoracic Cavity
- Pleural Cavity
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 583 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Thoracentesis” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 257 of them (44.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 344 records.
Reviews account for 110 records (18.9%) and meta-analyses for 7. Randomized controlled trials number 18 (3.1%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 344 |
| 2020 onward | 257 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 110 | 18.9% |
| Meta-analyses | 7 | 1.2% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 18 | 3.1% |
Method: PubMed query "Thoracentesis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology
A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Pleural Fluid suPAR Levels Predict the Need for Invasive Management in Parapneumonic Effusions [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Rationale: Parapneumonic effusions have a wide clinical spectrum.
- Closing excerpt
- These results need validation in a prospective multicenter trial.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (197 words)
Rationale: Parapneumonic effusions have a wide clinical spectrum. The majority settle with conservative management but some progress to complex collections requiring intervention. For decades, physicians have relied on pleural fluid pH to determine the need for chest tube drainage despite a lack of prospective validation and no ability to predict the requirement for fibrinolytics or thoracic surgery.Objectives: To study the ability of suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor), a potential biomarker of pleural fluid loculation, to predict the need for invasive management compared with conventional fluid biomarkers (pH, glucose, and lactate dehydrogenase) in parapneumonic effusions.Methods: Patients presenting with pleural effusions were prospectively recruited to an observational study with biological samples stored at presentation. Pleural fluid and serum suPAR levels were measured using the suPARnostic double-monoclonal antibody sandwich ELISA on 93 patients with parapneumonic effusions and 47 control subjects (benign and malignant effusions).Measurements and Main Results: Pleural suPAR levels were significantly higher in effusions that were loculated versus nonloculated parapneumonic effusions (median, 132 ng/ml vs. 22 ng/ml; P Conclusions: Raised pleural suPAR was predictive of patients receiving more invasive management of parapneumonic effusions and added value to conventional biomarkers. These results need validation in a prospective multicenter trial.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32069085 · DOI · PMC7301729
A retrospective study on the combined biomarkers and ratios in serum and pleural fluid to distinguish the multiple types of pleural effusion [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposePleural effusion (PE) is a common clinical manifestation, and millions of people suffer from pleural disease.
- Closing excerpt
- 8% was developed to differentiate the five types of PE in clinical settings.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (239 words)
PurposePleural effusion (PE) is a common clinical manifestation, and millions of people suffer from pleural disease. Herein, this retrospective study was performed to evaluate the biomarkers and ratios in serum and pleural fluid (PF) for the differential diagnosis of the multiple types of PE and search for a new diagnostic strategy for PE.MethodsIn-patients, who developed tuberculous PE (TPE), malignant PE (MPE), complicated parapneumonic effusion (CPPE), uncomplicated PPE (UPPE), or PE caused by connective tissue diseases (CTDs) and underwent thoracentesis at Peking University People's Hospital from November 2016 to April 2019, were included in this study. Eleven biomarkers and their ratios in serum and PF were investigated and compared between pairs of the different PE groups, and a decision-tree was developed.ResultsTotally 112 PE cases, including 25 MPE, 33 TPE, 19 CPPE, 27 UPPE, and 8 PE caused by CTDs, were reviewed. Biomarkers and ratios showed good diagnostic performance with high area under the curve values, sensitivities, and specificities for the differential diagnosis of the multiple types of PE. According to the decision-tree analysis, the combination of adenosine deaminase (ADA), serum albumin, serum lactate dehydrogenase, total protein, PF-LDH/ADA, and PF-LDH/TP provided the best predictive capacity with an overall accuracy of 84.8%; the sensitivity and specificity for TPE diagnosis were 100% and 98.7%, respectively.ConclusionThe biomarkers and ratios showed good diagnostic performance, and a decision-tree with an overall accuracy of 84.8% was developed to differentiate the five types of PE in clinical settings.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33740937 · DOI · PMC7980630
Intrapleural use of urokinase and DNase in pleural infections managed with repeated thoracentesis: A comparative cohort study [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- IntroductionEvacuation of infected fluid in pleural infections is essential.
- Closing excerpt
- Randomized controlled trials evaluating urokinase and DNase with RTT technique would be required to confirm these results.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (262 words)
IntroductionEvacuation of infected fluid in pleural infections is essential. To date, the use of an intrapleural fibrinolytic agent such as urokinase and DNase has not yet been assessed in infections managed by repeated therapeutic thoracentesis (RTT).MethodsWe performed a retrospective comparative study of two successive cohorts of consecutive patients with pleural infections from 2001 to 2018. Between 2001 and 2010, patients had RTT with intrapleural urokinase (RTT-U). After 2011, patients received intrapleural urokinase and DNase with RTT (RTT-UD). Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-three patients were included: 93 were men and the mean age was 59 years (standard deviation 17.2). Eighty-one patients were treated with a combination of intrapleural urokinase and DNase, and 52 were treated with intrapleural urokinase only. In the RTT-UD, RTT failure occurred in 14 patients (17%) compared to 10 (19%) in the RTT-U group (P = 0.82). There was no difference between the two groups in intensive care unit admission, surgical referrals or in-hospital mortality. RTT-UD was associated with faster time to apyrexia (aOR = 0.51, 95%CI [0.37-0.72]), a reduced length of hospital stay (aOR = 0.61, 95%CI [0.52-0.73]) and a higher volume of total pleural fluid retrieved (aOR = 1.38, 95%CI [1.02-1.88]). Complications were rare with only one hemothorax in the RTT-UD group and no pneumothorax requiring drainage in either group.ConclusionCompared to urokinase only, intrapleural use of urokinase and DNase in RTT was associated with quicker defervescence, shorter hospital stay and increased volumes of pleural fluid drained. Randomized controlled trials evaluating urokinase and DNase with RTT technique would be required to confirm these results.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34547022 · DOI · PMC8454966
Time to next procedure in patients with malignant pleural effusion undergoing aspiration: derivation and initial validation of the RED score [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- IntroductionIn patients with malignant pleural effusions (MPE), pleural fluid reaccumulates at variable rates following therapeutic aspiration.
- Closing excerpt
- Trial registration numberISRCTN16567838.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (185 words)
IntroductionIn patients with malignant pleural effusions (MPE), pleural fluid reaccumulates at variable rates following therapeutic aspiration. The aim of this study was to identify variables which predict time to next procedure and use them to develop a predictive score.MethodsThis prospective observational cohort study in 10 British hospitals recruited patients with known or suspected malignant effusions undergoing therapeutic aspiration. Follow-up lasted 3 months and assessed time to next clinically indicated pleural procedure. Regression analysis was performed to identify independent variables predicting time to next procedure, and a score derived. Initial validation was done in two external cohorts.Measurements and main results241 patients were recruited. Within the derivation cohort (n=180), baseline respiratory rate (R), pleural effusion depth on ultrasound (E) and dyspnoea measured using a visual analogue scale (D) (combined to form the RED score) were independent predictors of time to next procedure. Predictive models provided areas under the receiver operator curve of 0.73 and 0.75. Initial validity testing in two cohorts (n=31, n=57) demonstrated reasonable predictive value.ConclusionsIn patients with MPE, baseline respiratory rate, pleural effusion depth on ultrasound and dyspnoea predict time to next procedure.Trial registration numberISRCTN16567838.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41605644 · DOI · PMC13638286
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions [5]
- Research article Complications of thoracentesis: incidence, risk factors, and strategies for prevention [6]
- Research article Recommendations on the Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Adult Thoracentesis: A Position Statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine [7]
- Research article Contemporary best practice in the management of malignant pleural effusion [8]
- Research article Thoracic ultrasound in the modern management of pleural disease [9]
- Research article Diagnosis and characterization of malignant effusions through pleural fluid cytological examination [10]
References
- Arnold DT, Hamilton FW, Elvers KT, Frankland SW, Zahan-Evans N, Patole S, et al.. Pleural Fluid suPAR Levels Predict the Need for Invasive Management in Parapneumonic Effusions. . 2020. PMID 32069085 · DOI · PMC7301729
- Lin L, Li S, Xiong Q, Wang H. A retrospective study on the combined biomarkers and ratios in serum and pleural fluid to distinguish the multiple types of pleural effusion. . 2021. PMID 33740937 · DOI · PMC7980630
- Luque Paz D, Bayeh B, Chauvin P, Poizeau F, Lederlin M, Kerjouan M, et al.. Intrapleural use of urokinase and DNase in pleural infections managed with repeated thoracentesis: A comparative cohort study. . 2021. PMID 34547022 · DOI · PMC8454966
- Mishra EK, Davies H, Abbas SH, Hardy C, Beith DT, Sethi D, et al.. Time to next procedure in patients with malignant pleural effusion undergoing aspiration: derivation and initial validation of the RED score. . 2026. PMID 41605644 · DOI · PMC13638286
- Bibby AC, Dorn P, Psallidas I, Porcel JM, Janssen J, Froudarakis M, et al.. ERS/EACTS statement on the management of malignant pleural effusions. Eur Respir J. 2018. PMID 30054348 · DOI
- Cantey EP, Walter JM, Corbridge T, Barsuk JH. Complications of thoracentesis: incidence, risk factors, and strategies for prevention. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016. PMID 27093476 · DOI · PMC8040091
- Dancel R, Schnobrich D, Puri N, Franco-Sadud R, Cho J, Grikis L, et al.. Recommendations on the Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Adult Thoracentesis: A Position Statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2018. PMID 29377972 · DOI
- Koegelenberg CFN, Shaw JA, Irusen EM, Lee YCG. Contemporary best practice in the management of malignant pleural effusion. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2018. PMID 29952251 · DOI · PMC6048656
- Hassan M, Mercer RM, Rahman NM. Thoracic ultrasound in the modern management of pleural disease. Eur Respir Rev. 2020. PMID 32350086 · DOI · PMC9488781
- Porcel JM. Diagnosis and characterization of malignant effusions through pleural fluid cytological examination. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2019. PMID 31082996 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.