SynthesisPloS one2025
Bilateral internal iliac artery ligation in trauma patients with severe pelvic hemorrhage: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Proximal Internal Iliac Artery Ligation in Obstetrics and Gynecology: An 11-Year Retrospective Single-Center Experience with No Clinically Detected Ischemic Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Missed Wooden Perineum Foreign Body Leading to Extensive Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSevere pelvic hemorrhage significantly contributes to mortality in trauma patients, yet the most effective treatment for severe pelvic injuries remains unclear. This systematic review evaluates the mortality and morbidity associated with bilateral internal iliac artery ligation (BIIAL) in patients experiencing severe hemorrhage from traumatic pelvic fractures.
methodsComprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until February 7, 2024, to identify relevant articles. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, which evaluates bias risk in nonrandomized intervention studies. The primary outcome was mortality following BIIAL, with the secondary outcome being complications related to the procedure.
resultsThe review included eight studies, all observational. The overall mortality rate after BIIAL ranged from 45.0% to 76.9%. Ischemic complications from BIIAL were infrequent. A high and unclear risk of bias due to confounding and participant selection was noted across the studies. Four studies highlighted distinct indications for BIIAL compared to angioembolization. BIIAL was employed for patients with severe hemodynamic instability or when angiography was not available.
conclusionDue to geographical limitations and significant heterogeneity among the studies reviewed, the true effect size of BIIAL remains indeterminate. Nevertheless, further prospective studies with robust designs are necessary. BIIAL holds potential as a viable option when angioembolization is not accessible or in cases of critical patient instability.
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.