Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578977›Full record

ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2022

Systematic review to evaluate algorithms for REBOA use in trauma and identify a consensus for patient selection.

Amelia Walling Maiga, Rishi Kundi, Jonathan James Morrison, Chance Spalding, Juan Duchesne, John Hunt, Jonathan Nguyen, Elizabeth Benjamin, Ernest E Moore, Ryan Lawless and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development of novel thoracic retractor for resuscitative thoracotomy.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  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

13 authors.

Amelia Walling MaigaVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6488-7024
Rishi KundiR Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jonathan James MorrisonR Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Chance SpaldingGrant Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Juan DuchesneTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
John HuntUniversity Medical Center New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Jonathan NguyenSurgery, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Elizabeth BenjaminEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ernest E MooreDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Ryan LawlessDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Andrew BeckettSt Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rachel RussoUniversity of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California, USA.
Bradley M DennisVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient selection for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has evolved during the last decade. A recent multicenter collaboration to implement the newest generation REBOA balloon catheter identified variability in patient selection criteria. The aims of this systematic review were to compare recent REBOA patient selection guidelines and to identify current areas of consensus and variability. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for REBOA patient selection in trauma. Published algorithms from 2015 to 2022 and institutional guidelines from a seven-center REBOA collaboration were compiled and synthesized. Results: Ten published algorithms and seven institutional guidelines on REBOA patient selection were included. Broad consensus exists on REBOA deployment for blunt and penetrating trauma patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage refractory to blood product resuscitation. Algorithms diverge on precise systolic blood pressure triggers for early common femoral artery access and REBOA deployment, as well as the use of REBOA for traumatic arrest and chest or extremity hemorrhage control. Conclusion: Although our convenience sample of institutional guidelines likely underestimates patient selection variability, broad consensus exists in the published literature regarding REBOA deployment for blunt and penetrating trauma patients with hypotension not responsive to resuscitation. Several areas of patient selection variability reflect individual practice environments. Level of evidence: Level 5, systematic review.

Indexed as

hemorrhagepractice guidelineresuscitation

Identifiers

PMID36578977
PMCPMC9791466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.