Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42028470›Full record

ReviewAnnals of vascular diseases2026

Ligation Versus Repair of Isolated Traumatic Peripheral Venous Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Noman Shahzad, Muhammad Asad Moosa, Nadeem Ahmed Siddiqui, Fareed Ahmed Shaikh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of vascular diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Noman ShahzadDoncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Doncaster, United Kingdom.
Muhammad Asad MoosaWorcester Royal Hospital, Worcester, United Kingdom.
Nadeem Ahmed SiddiquiSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Fareed Ahmed ShaikhSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are no guidelines to suggest repair versus ligation for traumatic deep venous injuries. We aimed to compare the outcomes after reconstruction versus ligation of isolated traumatic venous injuries. This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019143136) included all literature reported on the management of isolated venous injuries in adult trauma patients, excluding case reports from 1950 to 2020. Primary outcomes were mortality and amputation, while compartment syndrome, chronic venous hypertension, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were the secondary outcomes. PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane database, and Web of Science were searched. Study selection and synthesis were done following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 25 studies were included. All the studies were observational, with the majority being retrospective in nature. Results of our meta-analysis show that ligation is significantly associated with higher rates of amputation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-2.48, p = 0.003) and mortality (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.09-2.06, p = 0.01), whereas there is no significant difference in the rates of chronic venous insufficiency, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. There is insufficient data to analyze various types of venous repair, as well as to account for clinical severity at the time of presentation. Our results favor repair over ligation.

Indexed as

ligationrepairstraumatic venous injury

Identifiers

PMID42028470
PMCPMC13102516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.