SynthesisScientific reports2025
A systematic review of emergency room laparotomy in patients with severe abdominal trauma.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Emergency laparotomies in trauma management: a six-year case series.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Successful treatment of recurrent traumatic cardiac arrest due to splenic rupture in trauma resuscitation unit: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage contributes to mortality in patients with trauma. However, initiating an emergent laparotomy in the operating room (OR) as a standard treatment can sometimes be time-consuming. To overcome this issue, laparotomy is performed in the emergency room (ER) in some institutions. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of performing ER laparotomy. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, up to August 9, 2024. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The primary outcome was mortality following ER laparotomy, and the secondary outcome was time from admission to first laparotomy. The review included 10 studies, all of which were observational. A meta-analysis was not performed due to substantial heterogeneity and insufficient data. Mortality rates after ER laparotomy ranged from 23 to 100%. Mortality rates were 23.0-66.7% in the conventional ER group, while they were 0-30% in the OR group. In the hybrid ER group, the 28-day mortality rates were 12.7-15%, compared to 21.7-22% in the conventional group. The time from admission to the first laparotomy was 17-43 min (median) in the conventional ER group, compared to 40-111 min (median) in the OR laparotomy group. In the hybrid ER setting, the time from admission to intervention, including laparotomy, was 35-48 min (median), whereas it was 72-101 min (median) in the conventional group. A high and unclear risk of bias due to confounding was noted across the studies. ER laparotomy may provide rapid bleeding control. However, due to the limited number of studies and significant heterogeneity among the studies reviewed, the true effect size of ER laparotomy in conventional and hybrid ER settings remains unclear.
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.