ReviewOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2012
The clinical effectiveness of permissive hypotension in blunt abdominal trauma with hemorrhagic shock but without head or spine injuries or burns: a systematic review.
Review in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrauma is a major cause of death and disability. The current trend in trauma management is the rapid administration of fluid as per the Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines, although there is no evidence to support this and even some to suggest it might be harmful. Some guidelines, protocols, and recommendations have been established for the use of permissive hypotension although there is reluctance concerning its application in blunt injuries.
objectivesThe aim of this review is to determine whether there is evidence of the use of permissive hypotension in the management of hemorrhagic shock in blunt trauma patients. This review also aims to search for any reason for the reluctance to apply permissive hypotension in blunt injuries.
methodsThis systematic review has followed the steps recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. It is also being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement and checklist. Database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases and the Cochrane Library were made for eligible studies as well as journal searches. Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews that have similar primary questions to this review and randomized controlled trials where patients with blunt torso injuries and hemorrhagic shock were not excluded. Rapid or early fluid administration was compared with controlled or delayed fluid resuscitation and a significant outcome was obtained.
resultsNo systematic reviews attempting to answer similar questions were found. Two randomized controlled trials with mixed types of injuries in the included patients found no significant difference between the groups used in each study. Data concerning the question of this review was sought after these papers were appraised.
conclusionThe limited available data are not conclusive. However, the supportive theoretical concept and laboratory evidence do not show any reason for treating blunt injuries differently from other traumatic injuries. Moreover, permissive hypotension is being used for some nontraumatic causes of hemorrhagic shock and in theater. Therefore, this should encourage interested researchers to continue clinical work in this important field.
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.