Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32660515›Full record

ReviewScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2020

Pelvic circumferential compression devices for prehospital management of suspected pelvic fractures: a rapid review and evidence summary for quality indicator evaluation.

Robin Pap, Rachel McKeown, Craig Lockwood, Matthew Stephenson, Paul Simpson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Control of Haemorrhage in Orthopaedic Trauma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robin PapJoanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. r.pap@westernsydney.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7058-0341
Rachel McKeownSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Craig LockwoodJoanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Matthew StephensonJoanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Paul SimpsonSchool of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
The University of Adelaide · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvic fractures, especially when unstable, may cause significant haemorrhage. The early application of a pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) in patients with suspected pelvic fracture has established itself as best practice. Ambulance services conduct corresponding performance measurement. Quality indicators (QIs) are ideally based on high-quality evidence clearly demonstrating that the desirable effects outweigh the undesirable effects. In the absence of high-quality evidence, best available evidence should be combined with expert consensus.

objectivesThe aim of the present study was to identify, appraise and summarize the best available evidence regarding PCCDs for the purpose of informing an expert panel tasked to evaluate the validity of the following QI: A patient with suspected pelvic fracture has a PCCD applied.

methodsA rapid review of four databases was conducted to identify relevant literature published up until 9 June 2020. Systematic reviews, experimental, quasi-experimental and observational analytic studies written in English were included. One author was responsible for study selection and quality appraisal. Data extraction using a priori extraction templates was verified by a second reviewer. Study details and key findings were summarized in tables.

resultsA total of 13 studies were assessed to be eligible for inclusion in this rapid review. Of these, three were systematic reviews, one was a randomized clinical trial (crossover design), two were before-after studies, and seven were retrospective cohort studies. The systematic reviews included mostly observational studies and could therefore not be considered as high-level evidence. Overall, the identified evidence is of low quality and suggests that PCCD may provide temporary pelvic ring stabilization and haemorrhage control, although a potential for adverse effects exists.

conclusionGiven the low quality of the best available evidence, this evidence would need to be combined with expert consensus to evaluate the validity of a related quality indicator before its implementation.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareEmergency Medical ServicesFractures, BoneHemorrhageHumansOrthopedic ProceduresPelvic BonesPelvic fracturePrehospital careQuality indicatorRapid reviewTrauma

Identifiers

PMID32660515
PMCPMC7359240
OpenAlexW3042376241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.