ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2026
Damage control resuscitation in resource-diverse settings: a survey-based comparison of trauma care practices worldwide.
Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 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
purposeTrauma is a major global cause of death, with uncontrolled hemorrhage as its leading preventable cause. Damage control resuscitation (DCR) is a cornerstone strategy for hemorrhagic shock, yet implementation varies by resource availability. This study compared DCR practices between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), predominantly represented by institutions from Latin America, particularly Brazil.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of trauma care providers was conducted between 2024 and 2025, assessing DCR practices, resuscitation strategies, and adjunctive therapies. Data from a Brazilian national survey were incorporated into the LMIC cohort. Countries were classified using World Bank 2024 income criteria, and comparisons were analyzed using hierarchical logistic regression with adjustment for multiple comparisons.
resultsMassive transfusion protocol availability result was significantly lower in LMICs than in HICs (47.4 vs. 89.1%; OR = 0.11, 95%CI 0.02-0.62; p(BH) < 0.001). LMICs also had reduced availability of fresh frozen plasma (OR = 0.04; p(BH) = 0.035), balanced crystalloids (OR = 0.21; p(BH) < 0.001), viscoelastic coagulation monitoring (TEG/ROTEM; OR = 0.04; p(BH) 0.001), prothrombin complex concentrate (OR = 0.01; p(BH) < 0.001), fibrinogen concentrate (OR = 0.10; p(BH) < 0.001), rapid infusers (OR = 0.04; p(BH) < 0.001), invasive temperature monitoring (OR = 0.02; p(BH) < 0.001), calcium replacement (OR = 0.17; p(BH) = 0.002), and active rewarming systems (OR = 0.21; p(BH) = 0.035). Whole blood use was lower in LMICs (5.8 vs. 17.4%) but did not reach statistical significance in the primary model (OR = 0.55, 95%CI 0.12-2.45). Tranexamic acid availability was nearly universal and did not differ between settings (96.1 vs. 97.8%).
conclusionAlthough DCR principles are widely recognized, substantial disparities persist in access to critical resuscitation resources across income 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.