SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Surgical versus non-surgical management of abdominal injury.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between operative management versus non-operative management in patients with solid organ blunt abdominal injury in the National Trauma Registry of Iran.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Patterns and outcomes of patients with abdominal injury: a multicenter study from Iran.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Mechanism matters: mortality and endothelial cell damage marker differences between blunt and penetrating traumatic injuries across three prehospital clinical trials.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Surgeon choice in management of pediatric abdominal trauma.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2021Article
- Prehospital plasma in injured patients is associated with survival principally in blunt injury: Results from two randomized prehospital plasma trials.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2020Article
- Selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma at a level 1 Canadian trauma centre: a quest for perfectionCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2019Article
- Kidney and uro-trauma: WSES-AAST guidelines.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2019Review
- Renal trauma: the current best practice.Therapeutic advances in urology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInjury to the abdomen can be blunt or penetrating. Abdominal injury can damage internal organs such as the liver, spleen, kidneys, intestine, and large blood vessels. There are controversies about the best approach to manage abdominal injuries.
objectivesTo assess the effects of surgical and non-surgical interventions in the management of abdominal trauma in a haemodynamically stable and non-peritonitic abdomen. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), EMBASE Classic+EMBASE (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), and clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. We ran the most recent search on 17 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions and non-surgical interventions involving people with abdominal injury who were haemodynamically stable with no signs of peritonitis. The abdominal injury could be blunt or penetrating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria. Data were extracted by two authors using a standard data extraction form, and are reported narratively. MAIN
resultsTwo studies are included, which involved a total of 114 people with penetrating abdominal injuries. Both studies are at moderate risk of bias because the randomisation methods are not fully described, and the original study protocols are no longer available. The studies were undertaken in Finland between 1992 and 2002, by the same two researchers.In one study, 51 people were randomised to surgery or an observation protocol. None of the participants in the study died. Seven people had complications: 5 (18.5%) in the surgical group and 2 (8.3%) in the observation group; the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.42; Fischer's exact). Among the 27 people who had surgery, 6 (22.2%) surgeries were negative laparotomies, and 15 (55.6%) were non-therapeutic.In the other study, 63 people were randomised to diagnostic laparoscopy (surgery) or an observation protocol. There were no deaths and no unnecessary surgeries in either group. Four people did not receive the intervention they were assigned. There was no difference in therapeutic operations between the two groups: 3 of 28 in the diagnostic laparoscopy group versus 1 of 31 in the observation protocol group (P = 0.337). AUTHORS'
conclusionsBased on the findings of 2 studies involving a total of 114 people, there is no evidence to support the use of surgery over an observation protocol for people with penetrating abdominal trauma who have no signs of peritonitis and are stable.
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.