ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prehospital Plasma Administration for Hemorrhagic Shock.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prehospital plasma transfusion versus standard of care following traumatic injury: a review of the systematic reviews and a meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hemorrhagic shock demands swift intervention. Management involves the rapid infusion of blood products to restore circulation and uphold tissue perfusion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of prehospital plasma administration in trauma patients, comparing outcomes with normal saline. This was a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from August 1, 2018, to April 4, 2023. The PubMed search string included terms related to blood plasma, prehospital care, emergency medical services, and hemorrhagic shock: (Blood Plasma [MeSH Terms] OR fresh frozen plasma [MeSH Terms] OR plasma OR fresh frozen plasma OR FFP) AND (Prehospital OR emergency care, prehospital [MeSH Terms] OR prehospital emergency care [MeSH Terms] OR prehospital OR prehospital OR EMS OR emergency medical service [MeSH Terms]) AND (hemorrhagic shock [MeSH Terms] OR hemorrhage OR hemorrhage OR hemorrhagic shock OR hemorrhagic shock). Results from the trials were pooled using a random effects model, presented as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Results: In the analysis of 760 patients from three studies, outcomes included mortality at 24 h and 28 days, multi-organ failure (MOF), acute lung injury, and vasopressor use within 24 h. Patients were divided into plasma (363) and normal saline (397) groups. Conclusion: There is no distinction between prehospital plasma administration and normal saline concerning mortality at 24 and 28 days or the need for vasopressors within 24 h. Moreover, plasma administration did not appear to influence rates of acute lung injury or MOF.
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.