ArticleBMJ open2023
Incidence, demographics and outcomes of patients with penetrating injury: a Japanese nationwide 10-year retrospective study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical decision-making in self-inflicted, non-ballistic penetrating neck injuries: a single-center retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Incidence and predictors of mortality among traumatic brain injury patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of trauma and injury · 2025Article
- Thoracoscopic repair of penetrating lung trauma with pulmonary tractotomy: a case report.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery cases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnintentional injury remains the leading cause of death among Japanese people younger than 35 years; however, data are limited on the evaluation of characteristics, long-term mortality trend and mortality risk of patients with penetrating injury in Japan. This prevents the development of effective strategies for trauma care in patients with penetrating injury.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study investigated 313 643 patients registered in the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB) dataset between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2018. The inclusion criteria comprised patients with penetrating injuries transferred from the injury site by emergency vehicles. Moreover, the patients registered in the JTDB dataset were included in this study regardless of age and sex. Outcomes measured were nationwide trends of characteristics, in-hospital mortality and in-hospital mortality risk among Japanese patients with penetrating injury. The mortality risk was analysed by hospital admission year, age, Injury Severity Score (ISS) and emergency procedures.
resultsOverall, 7132 patients were included. Median age significantly increased during the 10-year study periods (from 48 to 54 years, p=0.002). Trends for the mechanism of injury did not change; the leading cause of penetrating injury was stab wounds (SW: 76%-82%). Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate significantly decreased (4.0% to 1.7%, p=0.008). However, no significant improvement was observed in the in-hospital mortality trend in all ISS groups with SW and active bleeding. Patients with active bleeding who underwent urgent transcatheter arterial embolization had significantly lower mortality risk (p=0.043, OR=0.12, 95% CI=0.017 to 0.936). Conversely, the surgical procedure for haemostasis did not improve the mortality risk of patients with SW and active bleeding.
conclusionThe severity-adjusted mortality trend in patients with penetrating injuries did not improve. Moreover, patients with active bleeding who underwent urgent surgical procedure for haemostasis had a higher mortality risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.