ArticleJournal of trauma management & outcomes2014
Compartmental anatomical classification of traumatic abdominal injuries from the academic point of view and its potential clinical implication.
Article in Journal of trauma management & outcomes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneous Retroperitoneal Hematoma in Vitamin C Deficiency.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2023Article
- Successful non-operative management of multiple intra-abdominal solid organ injury after blunt abdominal trauma: a case report.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
- Single Versus Multiple Solid Organ Injuries Following Blunt Abdominal Trauma.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mechanism and outcome of traumatic abdominal injury (TAI) varies worldwide. Moreover, data comparing TAIs in each abdominal compartment are lacking. We aimed to assess from the academic point of view, TAI based on its anatomical compartments. PATIENTS &
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study for TAI patients between 2008 and 2011 in Qatar. Patients were categorized according to the involved anatomical compartment (C): intrathoracic (ITC), retroperitoneal (RPC), true abdomen (TAC), and pelvic abdomen (PAC) group. Chi Square test, One-Way ANOVA and multivariate regression analysis were appropriately performed.
resultsOf 6,888 patients admitted to the trauma unit, 1,036 (15%) had TAI that were grouped as ITC (65%), RPC (15%), TAC (13%), and PAC (7%). The mean age was lowest in ITC (29 ± 13) and highest in TAC (34 ± 11) group, (P = 0.001). Motor vehicle crash was the main mechanism of injury in all groups except for PAC, in which fall dominated. Vast majority of expatriates had PAC and TAC injuries. The main abdominal injuries included liver (35%; ITC), spleen (32%; ITC) and kidneys (18%; RPC). Extra-abdominal injuries involved the head in RPC and ITC, lung in ITC and RPC and extremities in PAC. Mean ISS was higher in RPC and ITC. Abdominal AIS was higher in TAC injuries. Overall hospital mortality was 10%: RPC (15%), TAC (11%), ITC (9.4%) and PAC (1.5%). Concurrent traumatic brain injury (OR 5.3; P = 0.001) and need for blood transfusion (OR 3.03; P = 0.003) were the main independent predictors of mortality.
conclusionIn addition to its academic value, the anatomical approach of TAI would be a complementary tool for better understanding and prediction of the pattern and outcome of TAI. This would be possible if further research find accurate, early diagnostic tool for this anatomical classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.