ArticleScientific reports2025
An injectable, expandable polyacrylamide cryogel decreases blood loss and improves survival in a porcine model of junctional hemorrhage.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Uncontrolled hemorrhage, including junctional hemorrhage, is a leading cause of preventable death in military trauma. Effective therapies are urgently needed to stabilize patients and prevent further blood loss. We developed an injectable, Expandable Polyacrylamide Cryogel (EPC) that rapidly expands to tamponade bleeding. The hemostatic efficacy of EPC was compared to other hemostatic products in a porcine junctional hemorrhage model. Splenectomized domestic swine (~ 40 kg; N = 37) were randomized to no treatment (N = 8), EPC (N = 7), EPC + thrombin (N = 6), XStat (N = 7), and Combat Gauze (CG, N = 9). They underwent transection of the right femoral artery/vein, followed by 30 s of free bleed, 3 min of manual compression, and observation for up to 3 h. EPC application achieved hemostasis and 100% survival for both formulations, compared to XStat (85%), CG (67%), and no treatment (37%) (p 0.0228, Fisher exact). Mean total blood loss was lowest in EPC groups (~ 590 mL) versus no treatment (1,683 ± 570 mL), XStat (784 ± 407 mL), and CG (1,181 ± 721 mL; p < 0.001 ANOVA). All other endpoints tended to favor the EPC formulations. EPC application for junctional-type injury produced wound tamponade with better survival, reduced blood loss, and better hemodynamic and laboratory parameters compared to no treatment, with trending improvements over XStat and CG.
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.