Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38272794›Full record

ReviewInternational wound journal2024

State of the art, trends, hotspots, and prospects of injection materials for controlling bleeding.

Changsheng Feng, Liang Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International wound journal, 2024. 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. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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.

Changsheng FengSchool of Physics and Electronic Information, Yan'an University, Yan'an, China.
Liang YangSchool of Physics and Electronic Information, Yan'an University, Yan'an, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5340-463X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic haemorrhage is a prevalent clinical condition, and effective and timely haemostasis is crucial for the preservation of patients' lives. In recent years, injectable hemostatic materials have gained significant attention due to their excellent hemostatic efficacy, biocompatibility, and biodegradability, making them widely applied in the treatment of incompressible traumatic haemorrhage. Systematic analysis of injectable hemostatic materials is crucial for research in this area. This article provides a comprehensive review of the development and research trends of injectable hemostatic materials over the past 20 years using visualization techniques. Analysis of collaboration and co-citation networks revealed localized research collaboration networks, highlighting the need for enhanced international collaboration in the field of injectable hemostatic materials. Current research focuses primarily on hemostatic materials, hemostatic processes, and hemostatic mechanisms. Injectable hemostatic materials with excellent performance offer promising strategies for wound healing. This review provides a comprehensive and systematic summary of injectable hemostatic materials, offering valuable guidance for the development and clinical application of novel injectable hemostatic materials. Additionally, visualized methodology and mapping analysis are effective data mining methods that provide approaches and strategies for clear knowledge network analysis. These methods facilitate better understanding and interpretation of research dynamics in the field of injectable hemostatic materials, thereby guiding and inspiring future research.

Indexed as

HemostaticsHemorrhageHemostasisHumansWound HealingHemostaticshaemostasisinjectabletraumatic haemorrhagewound healing

Identifiers

PMID38272794
PMCPMC10789653

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.