ReviewBulletin of emergency and trauma2026
Emergency Hemorrhage Control Strategies and Outcomes in Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fracture Trauma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Bulletin of emergency and trauma, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare emergency hemorrhage control interventions for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture trauma, assessing clinical outcomes, including mortality, transfusion requirements, and complication rates. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted in December 2024. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, which considered adult patients (≥18 years) with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using standardized tools. Interventions of interest included preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), angioembolization (AE), resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), and mechanical stabilization. Results: Ten studies were included. PPP and AE demonstrated comparable in-hospital mortality rates. However, PPP was associated with shorter intervention times and reduced early transfusion requirements. Mechanical stabilization was universally recommended as an initial step, while REBOA served as a temporizing measure. The overall strength of evidence was moderate, derived primarily from retrospective studies and meta-analyses, with no randomized controlled trials identified. Conclusion: Both PP and AE were effective for hemorrhage control in hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures, with the choice of first-line intervention often dependent on logistical factors. The development of standardized protocols and prospective studies should be prioritized in future work to optimize management strategies.
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.