Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34115235›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2021

Splenic embolization in trauma: results of a survey from an international cohort.

Alessandro Gasparetto, David Hunter, Marc Sapoval, Sandeep Sharma, Jafar Golzarian

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2021. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessandro GasparettoBoston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. alessandro.gasparetto@childrens.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4704-6762
David HunterUniversity of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-1253
Marc SapovalHopital Europeen Georges-Pompidou (Hopitaux Universitaires Paris-Ouest), 20 Rue Leblanc 75015, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4226-6192
Sandeep SharmaUniversity of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3737-7683
Jafar GolzarianUniversity of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7847-0489
University of Minnesota · USBoston Children's Hospital · USHôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA questionnaire regarding splenic embolization in trauma was submitted to an international sample of IR faculty members, to compare their practice to the available recommendations.

methodsA 21 multiple-choice questionnaire was sent to an international cohort of 96 IR faculty. Questions included the initial patient evaluation, embolization materials and techniques, post-procedure management, availability of an institutional protocol, and use of guidelines.

resultsFor each question, there were from a minimum of 45 to a maximum of 52 responders: 94% require a CT with contrast prior to embolization, and 87% use the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) scale to grade the splenic injuries. Embolization is performed across all values of the AAST scale. Of the patients with injuries of grade III or greater, embolization is primarily done for those patients who are hemodynamically stable. Unstable patients are embolized less frequently and primarily in cases in which the injuries are of a lower grade. Coils are the preferred material for proximal embolization (69%). Particles/Gelfoam is the preferred material for distal embolization (38%). In total, 63% administer intravenous antibiotics before the procedure and 15% administer intra-arterial antibiotics during the procedure. After embolization, follow-up imaging is recommended by 87%, antibiotics are administered regularly by 33%, clinical follow-up is recommended by 73%, and vaccination against encapsulated organisms is routinely recommended by 39%.

conclusionsThere is significant variability among a heterogeneous cohort of respondents. Available recommendations may not be sufficiently addressing the practice of splenic embolization.

Indexed as

Abdominal InjuriesEmbolization, TherapeuticWounds, NonpenetratingHumansSpleenSurveys and QuestionnairesEmbolizationSpleenTrauma

Identifiers

PMID34115235
OpenAlexW3166106187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.