Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35732811›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2022

The conundrum of the definition of haemorrhagic shock: a pragmatic exploration based on a scoping review, experts' survey and a cohort analysis.

Arthur James, Paer-Selim Abback, Pierre Pasquier, Sylvain Ausset, Jacques Duranteau, Clément Hoffmann, Tobias Gauss, Sophie Rym Hamada, Traumabase Group

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Arthur JamesDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, GRC 29, AP-HP, DMU DREAM, 75013, Paris, France. arthur.james@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1172-6398
Paer-Selim AbbackDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Hôpital Beaujon, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Nord Val de Seine, APHP, Clichy, France.
Pierre PasquierDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Percy Army Training Hospital, Clamart, France.
Sylvain AussetFrench Military Medical School, 69500, Bron, France.
Jacques DuranteauDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Paris-Saclay University, Bicêtre Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Clément HoffmannBurn Center, Percy Military Teaching Hospital, Clamart, France.
Tobias GaussDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Percy Army Training Hospital, Clamart, France.
Sophie Rym HamadaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, APHP, Université de Paris, 20 rue Leblanc 15, Paris, France. sophie.hamada@aphp.fr.
Traumabase Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTraumatic hemorrhagic shock (THS) is a complex, dynamic process and, no consensual definition of THS is available. This study aims (1) to explore existing definitions of traumatic hemorrhagic shock (THS), (2) to identify essential components of these definitions and (3) to illustrate in a pragmatic way the consequences of applying five of these definitions to a trauma registry.

methodsWe conducted (1) a scoping review to identify the definitions used for traumatic hemorrhagic shock (THS); (2) an international experts survey to rank by relevance a selection of components extracted from these definitions and (3) a registry-based analysis where several candidate definitions were tested in a large trauma registry to evaluate how the use of different definitions affected baseline characteristics, resources use and patient outcome.

resultsSixty-eight studies were included revealing 52 distinct definitions. The most frequently used was "a systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than or equal to 70 mmHg or between 71 and 90 mmHg if the heart rate is greater than or equal to 108 beats per min". The expert panel identified base excess, blood lactate concentration, SBP and shock index as the most relevant physiological components to define THS. Five definitions of THS were tested and highlighted significant differences across groups on important outcomes such as the proportion of massive transfusion, the need for surgery, in-hospital length of stay or in-hospital mortality.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates a large heterogeneity in the definitions of THS suggesting a need for standardization. Five candidate definitions were identified in a three-step process to illustrate how each shapes study cohort composition and impacts outcome. The results inform research stakeholders in the choice of a consensual definition.

Indexed as

Shock, HemorrhagicCohort StudiesHemorrhageHospital MortalityHumansLactatesShock, TraumaticLactatesExperts’ surveyHemorrhagic shockMethodologyOutcomeScoping reviewSevere trauma

Identifiers

PMID35732811
PMCPMC9712310

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.