ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Effectiveness of pelvic circumferential compression device for lower body trauma: Insights from a Japan Trauma Data Bank retrospective study.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemorrhage control in pelvic ring injuries: the role of PCCDs and other acute measures in Germany.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of pelvic circumferential compression device for lower body trauma: Insights from a Japan Trauma Data Bank retrospective study.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Pelvic ring fractures (PRFs) due to high-energy trauma often result in severe bleeding and high mortality. Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) are widely used to stabilize PRF and decrease bleeding. However, evidence supporting their effectiveness is still inconclusive. Methods: We conducted an observational study using the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB) from 2019 to 2021. Patients with blunt lower body trauma aged 15 years or older were included. We used propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to evaluate the association of PCCD and mortality. Results: Of the 74,393 patients in the database, 235 PCCD group and 23,429 control group were analyzed. After PSM, 231 patients in both groups were enrolled. Crude analysis indicated significantly higher in-hospital mortality in the PCCD group (odds ratio (OR) = 3.8 [95% CI = 2.51-5.75]). However, PSM and IPTW analysis indicated that PCCD was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (PSM: OR = 0.79 [0.43-1.42]; IPTW: OR = 0.73 [0.62-0.86]). In a subgroup analysis of the IPTW analysis, PCCD fitting resulted in increased in-hospital mortality in the group without PRF (OR = 2.08 [1.91-2.27]), a decrease in stable PRF (OR = 0.74 [0.6-0.91]), and a further decrease in unstable PRF (OR = 0.18 [0.12-0.27]). Additional factors, such as a fall from a height, a fall downstairs, and pre-hospital PCCD placement also influenced the treatment effect. Conclusion: The present, large, registry-based study found that PCCD reduced mortality in patients with a lower body injury, especially those with an unstable PRF.
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.