ArticleInternational orthopaedics2019
Predictors of mortality after pelvic fractures: a retrospective cohort study from a level one trauma centre in Upper Egypt.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of focused assessment with sonography for trauma in resource-limited settings: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Irreducible Locked Symphysis Pubis Disruption Caused by Incarcerated Urinary Bladder in a 14-year-Old Boy, a Case Report and Review of the Literature.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2025Article
- Paediatric pelvic fractures - an updated literature review.ANZ journal of surgery · 2022Review
- Surgical management of paediatric pelvic fractures: a prospective case series and early experience from a level one Egyptian trauma centre.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary objective was to identify the predictors of in-hospital mortality after pelvic ring injuries. Secondary objectives were to analyze the differences between adults and children and to analyze the causes and timing of death.
methodsA retrospective cohort study from the pelvic registry of Assiut University Trauma Unit (AUTU), a level 1 trauma centre in Upper Egypt, was carried out. A total of 1188 consecutive patients with pelvic ring fractures treated from January 2010 to December 2013 were eligible for analysis. Potential predictors were identified using standard statistical tests: univariable and multivariable regression analysis.
resultsNine hundred fifty-one were adults (above 16 years) and 237 were children. According to Tile's classification, fractures type A, B, and C were 31.8%, 25.1%, and 43.1%, respectively. About a third of patients had fractures with soft tissue injury. Abdominopelvic collection as diagnosed by Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) was positive in 11%. Associated injuries were present in 67.3% with abdominal-urogenital injuries being the most prevalent (66.3%). Median hospital stay was five days. Fifty-two patients (4.4%) were admitted to the ICU. One hundred three patients died (8.7%) within two peaks: first 24 hours and between 48 hours and one week. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified increasing age, fractures with soft tissue injury, associated head injury, positive FAST examination, and admission to an ICU as significant predictors of in-hospital mortality.
conclusionsThe first 24 hours were confirmed to be critical for survival in pelvic fracture patients. Advancing age, associated soft tissue injury, associated head injury, admission to ICU, and positive FAST examination can serve as reliable predictors for an elevated mortality risk in such patients.
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.