ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Wild Boar-Related Injuries in Wilderness Environments: Field-Oriented Management Principles and Evidence-Informed Clinical Recommendations.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild boar-related trauma is uncommon but may result in severe injuries that pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, particularly in wilderness or resource-limited environments. Most scientific literature consists of isolated case reports, regional series, and forensic descriptions; clinical guidance is therefore fragmented. This study synthesizes two complementary evidence sources: a structured observational cohort documenting 101 injuries sustained by boar hunters during organized hunts in Germany, and a comprehensive systematic review of all globally published wild boar- and feral pig-related human injuries. The observational cohort provided internally consistent epidemiologic information on who was injured, under what circumstances, how quickly assistance was obtained, and how injuries were treated and ultimately healed. The systematic review added detailed insight into injury morphology and severity across diverse settings, including reports of deep wound tracts, extensive soft-tissue disruption, significant contamination, and the risk of hemorrhage, neurovascular compromise, or thoracoabdominal penetration. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 principles and included explicit study identification, screening, and eligibility assessment. Integrating these sources enabled a field-oriented approach to assessment and management, emphasizing early hemorrhage control, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, appropriate use of imaging, thorough surgical exploration when indicated, and region-specific tetanus or rabies prophylaxis. Together, these findings support clinicians working in remote or austere environments who may encounter these rare but potentially serious 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.