ArticleScientific reports2025
Analysis of the effect of arterial embolization combined with external fixation in the treatment of unstable pelvic fracture with hemorrhagic shock.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of comparing arterial embolization (AE) combined with external fixation (EF) versus EF alone in the treatment of unstable pelvic fractures with hemorrhagic shock. Ninety patients with unstable pelvic fracture with hemorrhagic shock admitted to our hospital from March 2017 to February 2025 were collected and divided into AE + EF group (n = 45) and EF group (n = 45) according to treatment. Initial vital signs, ISS score, shock index SI, initial systolic blood pressure SBP, postoperative 24 h red blood cell transfusion volume, hemostasis success rate, ICU stay time, and in-hospital mortality rate were recorded and compared between the two groups. Baseline characteristics (age, ISS score, shock index, preoperative and intraoperative blood transfusions, and initial systolic blood pressure) were not statistically different between the two groups (P > 0.05). Compared with the EF group, the AE + EF group had a low 24-h postoperative red blood cell transfusion (2.0 [0-3.0] vs. 3.0 [2.0-3.5] U, P = 0.028), a high success rate of hemostasis (97.78% vs. 82.22%, P = 0.030), and a short ICU stay ( 4.0 [2.0-8.0] vs. 7.0 [5.0-9.0] days, P = 0.020), and low mortality (4.44% vs. 24.44%, P = 0.016). Compared with EF alone, AE combined with EF significantly improves hemostasis, reduces transfusion dependence, decreases ICU burden, and results in decreased mortality in patients with unstable pelvic fractures with hemorrhagic shock. It is recommended as the preferred treatment option for patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures with hemorrhagic shock.
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.