ArticleCureus2018
Visceral Injuries in Patients with Blunt and Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Presenting to a Tertiary Care Facility in Karachi, Pakistan.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blunt abdominal trauma: a retrospective study on clinical insights and treatment outcomes.Journal of trauma and injury · 2025Article
- Moving toward point-of-care surgery in Ukraine: testing an ultra-portable operating room in an active war zone.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Article
- Article
- A feasibility study using sodium alginate injection for penetrating abdominal trauma in a swine model.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Blunt trauma to abdominal solid organs: an experience of non-operative management at a rural hospital in Zambia.The Pan African medical journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Abdominal injuries are responsible for 10% of the mortalities due to trauma. Delays in early diagnosis or misdiagnoses are two major reasons for the mortality and morbidity associated with abdominal trauma. The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency of visceral injuries in patients with abdominal trauma and compare the frequency of visceral injuries in patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study from May 2016 to May 2018 of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center in Karachi, Pakistan. Patients were 12 to 65 years old and presented within 24 hours of abdominal trauma. We recorded the type of abdominal visceral injuries, such as liver, spleen, intestine, stomach, mesentery, and pancreas. Results The mean patient age was 31 ±13 years. Penetrating trauma was found in most patients (n=72, 51%). Liver injuries were found in 37 patients (26.4%), spleen injuries in 29 patient (20.7%), stomach injuries in eight patients (5.7%), intestine injuries in 67 patients (47.9%), mesentery injuries in 21 patients (15%), and pancreas injuries in nine patients (6.4%). The type of abdominal trauma was found significantly associated with liver injury (p-value 0.021), and intestine injury (p-value <0.001). Conclusion Penetrating trauma (51.4%) was more common than blunt trauma (48.5%), and intestines are the most commonly affected by penetrating and blunt trauma injuries (70.1% and 47.8%, respectively). The liver is the most commonly affected (42.85%) in blunt trauma injuries, followed by the spleen (28.5%). The appropriate authorities should consider this information when instituting public health and safety initiatives.
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.