Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769034›Full record

Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016

Does usage of a parachute in contrast to free fall prevent major trauma?: a prospective randomised-controlled trial in rag dolls.

Patrick Czorlich, Till Burkhardt, Jan Hendrik Buhk, Jakob Matschke, Marc Dreimann, Nils Ole Schmidt, Sven Oliver Eicker

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick CzorlichDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Till BurkhardtDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Jan Hendrik BuhkDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Jakob MatschkeForensic Neuropathology Unit, Institute of Neuropathology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Marc DreimannDepartment of Trauma, Hand, and Reconstructive Surgery, Spine Centre, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Nils Ole SchmidtDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Sven Oliver EickerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. eicker.s@mac.com.
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIt is undisputed for more than 200 years that the use of a parachute prevents major trauma when falling from a great height. Nevertheless up to date no prospective randomised controlled trial has proven the superiority in preventing trauma when falling from a great height instead of a free fall. The aim of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to prove the effectiveness of a parachute when falling from great height.

methodsIn this prospective randomised-controlled trial a commercially acquirable rag doll was prepared for the purposes of the study design as in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki, the participation of human beings in this trial was impossible. Twenty-five falls were performed with a parachute compatible to the height and weight of the doll. In the control group, another 25 falls were realised without a parachute. The main outcome measures were the rate of head injury; cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and pelvic fractures; and pneumothoraxes, hepatic, spleen, and bladder injuries in the control and parachute groups. An interdisciplinary team consisting of a specialised trauma surgeon, two neurosurgeons, and a coroner examined the rag doll for injuries. Additionally, whole-body computed tomography scans were performed to identify the injuries.

resultsAll 50 falls-25 with the use of a parachute, 25 without a parachute-were successfully performed. Head injuries (right hemisphere p = 0.008, left hemisphere p = 0.004), cervical trauma (p < 0.001), thoracic trauma (p < 0.001), lumbar trauma (p < 0.001), pelvic trauma (p < 0.001), and hepatic, spleen, and bladder injures (p < 0.001) occurred more often in the control group. Only the pneumothoraxes showed no statistically significant difference between the control and parachute groups.

conclusionsA parachute is an effective tool to prevent major trauma when falling from a great height.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsCraniocerebral TraumaFractures, BoneHumansManikinsPelvic BonesProspective StudiesProtective DevicesResearch DesignEvidence-based medicineFallParachutePreventionTrauma

Identifiers

PMID26769034
OpenAlexW2239114305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.