ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Impact of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta on In-Hospital and Short-Term Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is increasingly employed in patients with hemorrhagic shock and cardiovascular collapse; however, its impact on mortality remains controversial. Differences in geographic regions and patient populations may influence clinical outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing mortality between patients receiving REBOA and those managed without REBOA. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed according to propensity score (PS) matching, trauma versus non-trauma populations, and geographic regions.
resultsA total of 10 studies involving 18,611 patients were included. Overall, REBOA was not associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared with non-REBOA (pooled OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.19-1.39,
conclusionsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, REBOA was not associated with a significant reduction in mortality in the overall population or in trauma patients. However, in a single small non-trauma study (n = 53), REBOA was associated with significantly reduced mortality; this finding is exploratory and requires confirmation in larger prospective studies. These findings suggest that the clinical benefit of REBOA may depend on patient population and underlying etiology of hemorrhage.
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.