Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37521720›Full record

ReviewEmergency medicine international2023

An Evidenced-Based Review of Emergency Target Blood Pressure Management for Acute Aortic Dissection.

Hankui Hu, Zhoupeng Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Emergency medicine international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Hankui HuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0824-6047
Zhoupeng WuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8704-4908

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To summarize the best evidence of emergency target blood pressure management for acute aortic dissection and provide guidance for evidence-based practice of emergency target blood pressure management. Methods: According to the "6S" evidence pyramid model, the evidence of emergency target blood pressure management of acute aortic dissection in various foreign databases and websites of professional associations from January 1, 2010, to August 1, 2022, was retrieved, including clinical decision-making, guidelines, expert consensus, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series. Two researchers used the corresponding document quality evaluation tools to evaluate the documents and extracted and summarized the evidence of documents above grade B. Results: A total of 17 articles were included, including 6 clinical decision-making articles, 5 guidelines, 2 expert consensus articles, 1 systematic review article, 1 randomized controlled trial article, 1 cohort study article, and 1 case series article, forming 36 best evidences, including 9 topics, which are target value setting, management strategy, disease observation, medical history collection, monitoring methods, vasoactive drugs, nonvasoactive drugs, related examinations, and patient education. Conclusion: The best evidence summarized provides a reference for doctors and nurses in the emergency department to manage the emergency target blood pressure of patients with acute aortic dissection. It is recommended that doctors and nurses in the emergency department follow the best evidence summarized to develop individualized target blood pressure management plan for patients.

Identifiers

PMID37521720
PMCPMC10374381

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.