ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Traumatic Aortic Dissection as a Unique Clinical Entity: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Role of interventional radiology in mass casualty incidents : Current state of evidence exemplified by the attack on the Magdeburg Christmas market].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Beyond the Usual Suspects: Unlocalizable Back Pain After Trauma.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Review
- Localized dissection of ascending aorta and arch rupture due to fire suppressant blast: A rare mechanism of injury successfully managed by urgent surgical intervention.ARYA atherosclerosis · 2025Article
- Fatal Case of Organ Ischemia Secondary to Traumatic Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics, treatment approaches, and outcomes of the Stanford Type B traumatic aortic dissection (TAD) with non-traumatic aortic dissection (NTAD), and assess better management for TAD.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection at The First Hospital of China Medical University between 2014 and 2022. The patients were divided into TAD and NTAD groups based on whether they had a history of acute trauma. This study ultimately included 65 patients with TAD and 288 with NTAD. We assessed and compared the baseline characteristics, laboratory indicators, imaging features, surgical procedures, and follow-up results between the groups.
resultsThe TAD group was younger compared to the NTAD group (50.00 [IQR40.00-59.00] vs. 55.00 [IQR 47.00-61.00] years,
conclusionsTAD is distinct from NTAD. TAD typically presents with more localized lesions than NTAD, and the patients experience a shorter preoperative duration and a better mid-to-long-term outcome.
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.