SynthesisWiener klinische Wochenschrift2026
Resuscitative thoracotomy in traumatic cardiac arrest : Multisociety consensus recommendations for settings with a low prevalence of penetrating injuries.
Synthesis in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is recommended for selected patients with traumatic cardiac arrest, particularly after penetrating trauma; however, most evidence is derived from high-volume centers, creating uncertainty about its implementation in settings with a low prevalence of penetrating injuries. This study aimed to develop evidence-informed, consensus-based recommendations for the systematic implementation of RT in such contexts.
methodsA modified Delphi process was conducted with 24 specialists representing 10 Austrian medical societies and two emergency medical services. A systematic literature review was carried out to enable the development of 22 open-ended questions. Responses from the first round were synthesized into 28 statements.
resultsConsensus was achieved on all 28 statements after 4 rounds, with participation rates of 100% in rounds 1 and 2, and 91.7% in rounds 3 and 4. The panel issued 1 strong recommendation, 15 weak recommendations and 12 best-practice statements. Agreement was unanimous in 17.9%, strong in 50.0%, and moderate in 32.1% of the statements. Evidence certainty was rated as moderate (18.8%), low (43.8%) or very low (37.5%). Key recommendations emphasized strict indication criteria, system level prerequisites such as major trauma centers and physician-led emergency services, preference for the clamshell technique and the need for structured multidisciplinary training and governance.
conclusionThis consensus provides guidance on implementing RT in settings with a low prevalence of penetrating trauma. Careful patient selection, system preparedness and structured training are essential to optimize outcomes. These recommendations can support clinicians and policymakers in their decision if and how RT should be implemented into trauma systems with limited exposure to penetrating injuries.
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.