SynthesisPloS one2026
Outcomes of damage control laparotomy after trauma in low andmiddle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDamage control laparotomy (DCL) is an established life-saving strategy for critically injured patients presenting with the lethal triad of hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy. While outcomes in high-income countries (HICs) are well documented, evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as classified by the World Bank, remains fragmented. This systematic review synthesises available evidence on DCL outcomes in LMICs.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, and African Journals Online was conducted from January 2004 to February 2026. Studies reporting mortality outcomes after DCL for civilian trauma in World Bank-classified LMICs were included. Proportional meta-analysis using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with logit-transformed proportions was performed. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42025639498). The detailed search strategy is provided in S1 Table.
resultsTen retrospective studies comprising 914 patients from five countries (South Africa, Pakistan, India, Oman, and Brazil) met the inclusion criteria. Six of the ten studies (n = 704, 77.0%) were from South Africa. The pooled mortality rate was 37.77% (95% CI: 31.38%-44.62%; 95% prediction interval: 20.1%-59.1%), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74.46%), based on 327 deaths among 914 patients. Subgroup analysis showed a pooled mortality of 31.61% (95% CI: 28.27%-35.15%, I² = 0.00%) in South African studies and 53.62% (95% CI: 44.47%-62.54%, I² = 31.65%) in non-South African LMIC studies (Cochran Q-test for subgroup differences: Q = 14.23, df = 1, p < 0.001).
conclusionsDCL mortality in LMICs appears higher than mortality rates reported in HIC series, though direct comparison is limited by differences in study populations, injury profiles, case-mix, and the predominance of South African data in the available literature. The pooled estimate should be interpreted cautiously given the small number of studies, high heterogeneity, and retrospective study designs. Pre-hospital care, emergency theatre access, blood banking infrastructure, ICU capacity, and infection prevention represent potential areas for targeted improvement. Further prospective, multi-centre studies with standardised outcome definitions are needed to better characterise DCL outcomes across diverse LMIC 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.