ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2020
Traumastem Powder in Treatment of Non-Traumatic Anterior Epistaxis in Emergency Department; a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Recent Trends in the Application of Cellulose-Based Hemostatic and Wound Healing Dressings.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVarious studies are being conducted because of the value of finding an appropriate medication to control bleeding in patients with epistaxis faster and more conveniently. This study aimed to compare the effect of Traumastem powder with routine tampons in treatment of non-traumatic epistaxis.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with epistaxis presenting to the emergency departments of two hospitals affiliated to Tabriz University of Medical sciences. Patients were divided into two groups using randomization software (intervention group: 107 patients, control group: 96 patients). Primary outcome variables included bleeding control time and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcome variable was recurrence of bleeding within the first 24 hours after treatment. Visual assessment scoring system was used to assess patient satisfaction.
resultsEpistaxis was controlled in less than 5 minutes in 85 (79.4%) patients in the intervention group and 85 (88.5%) patients in the control group (P=0.058). Patient satisfaction in the intervention group was higher than that of the control group (P<0.05). In the intervention group, 10 patients experienced recurrence of epistaxis within 24 hours of treatment, while 9 patients in the control group experienced recurrence (P= 0.591).
conclusionBased on the findings, bleeding control time was similar in the two groups, but patient satisfaction was higher in Traumastem group. It is concluded that Traumastem can conveniently control anterior epistaxis, but it is not successful in cases with severe bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33134974PMC7588002W3115939902What 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.