ReviewAnnals of intensive care2025
Awareness, knowledge and practices related to intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among intensive care providers: a systematic scoping review.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Perioperative management of septic peritonitis in small animals: A review.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo provide a comprehensive overview of current research on intensive care providers' awareness, knowledge, and practices regarding IAP/IAH/ACS, as well as barriers to IAP measurement.
methodsThis scoping review was guided by the framework of Arksey and Malley. Eight databases were searched to identify research published after 2007, including MEDLINE Complete, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, CNKI, and WANFANG. Two researchers reviewed and screened potentially relevant studies based on title and abstract. Full-text articles were independently assessed for eligibility based on predefined inclusion criteria.
resultsNineteen articles were included. Overall, pediatric intensive care providers demonstrated a lower awareness and knowledge of IAH/ACS compared to adult intensive care providers, particularly regarding the consensus definitions of IAH/ACS in critically ill children. IAP measurement has not been adequately integrated into clinical practice, with 18.0-73.0% of intensive care providers reporting they have never measured it. The frequency of IAP measurements and the criteria for determining which patients necessitate such measurements exhibited significant variability across different hospitals. The most frequently mentioned barriers to IAP measurement include a lack of knowledge regarding IAP measurement among adult intensivists, an overreliance on physical examination among pediatric intensivists, uncertainty in interpreting IAP data among adult intensive care nurses, and challenges in identifying populations at high risk of IAH among pediatric intensive care nurses. Diuretics were mentioned most often in the management of IAH/ACS, followed by administration of vasopressors and inotropes, decompressive laparotomy, and judicious administration of fluids and blood products. 37.0-66.3% of adult intensivists would choose a decompressive laparotomy in cases of ACS, whereas pediatric intensivists were less inclined to opt for the same approach.
conclusionsSince the publication of the WSACS consensus in 2007, there has been an improvement in awareness and knowledge regarding IAP/IAH/ACS among intensive care providers. Nevertheless, the understanding of the consensus definitions regarding IAH/ACS remains inadequate, particularly among pediatric intensive care providers. It is imperative to advocate for the implementation of WSACS guidelines in hospitals through targeted training programs and to promote the routine practice of IAP measurement in clinical settings.
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.