Dataset Information

The acute management of trauma hemorrhage: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Worldwide, trauma is a leading cause of death and disability. Haemorrhage is responsible for up to 40% of trauma deaths. Recent strategies to improve mortality rates have focused on optimal methods of early hemorrhage control and correction of coagulopathy. We undertook a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) which evaluated trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock within the first 24 hours of injury and appraised how the interventions affected three outcomes: bleeding and/or transfusion requirements; correction of trauma induced coagulopathy and mortality.

Methods

Comprehensive searches were performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2010), Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Systematic Review Initiative (NHSBT SRI) RCT Handsearch Database.

Results

A total of 35 RCTs were identified which evaluated a wide range of clinical interventions in trauma hemorrhage. Many of the included studies were of low methodological quality and participant numbers were small. Bleeding outcomes were reported in 32 studies; 7 reported significantly reduced transfusion use following a variety of clinical interventions, but this was not accompanied by improved survival. Minimal information was found on traumatic coagulopathy across the identified RCTs. Overall survival was improved in only three RCTs: two small studies and a large study evaluating the use of tranexamic acid.

Conclusions

Despite 35 RCTs there has been little improvement in outcomes over the last few decades. No clear correlation has been demonstrated between transfusion requirements and mortality. The global trauma community should consider a coordinated and strategic approach to conduct well designed studies with pragmatic endpoints.

SUBMITTER: Curry N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3219356 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The acute management of trauma hemorrhage: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Curry Nicola N Hopewell Sally S Dorée Carolyn C Hyde Chris C Brohi Karim K Stanworth Simon S

Critical care (London, England) 20110309 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Worldwide, trauma is a leading cause of death and disability. Haemorrhage is responsible for up to 40% of trauma deaths. Recent strategies to improve mortality rates have focused on optimal methods of early hemorrhage control and correction of coagulopathy. We undertook a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) which evaluated trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock within the first 24 hours of injury and appraised how the interventions affected three outcomes ...[more]

PMID: 21392371

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Edaravone alleviates neurological deficits among patients with intracerebral hemorrhage; however, its effects on mortality and long-term functional outcomes remain unknown. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes associated with edaravone initiated within 7 days of symptoms onset in intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CiNii, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese VIP information, Wanfang Data, and SinoMed for relevant randomized controlled trials from their inception to 1 May 2021 and conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019147801). All-cause mortality and long-term functional outcomes were taken as the primary outcomes. Results: A total of 38 randomized controlled trials including 3,454 participants with acute intracerebral hemorrhage were included. The selected articles were of poor quality. Meta-analysis revealed that edaravone could not reduce all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) = 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11-2.32); p = 0.38]. No studies reported on long-term functional outcomes in those trials. In addition, edaravone alleviated neurological deficits [mean difference (MD) = -5.44; 95% CI (-6.44 to -4.44); p<0.00001], improved the activities of daily living [MD = 8.44; 95% CI (7.65-9.23); p<0.00001], reduced the hematoma volume [MD = -4.71; 95% CI (-5.86 to -3.56); p<0.00001], and increased treatment response [RR = 1.26; 95% CI (1.22-1.31); p<0.00001]. In terms of safety outcome, there was no significant difference between the edaravone group and the control groups [RR = 1.67; 95% CI (0.92 to 3.06); p = 0.09]. Conclusion: Till date, edaravone does not associate with mortality reduction when initiated within 7 days of intracerebral hemorrhage onset. The effect of edaravone on long-term functional outcomes remains unknown due to lack of data. Although edaravone alleviated neurological deficits, improved activities of daily living, and reduced hematoma volume, we cautiously interpreted the results owing to the overall poor quality and high heterogeneity of the included trials. Presently, the results are insufficient to support edaravone as a routine treatment option for acute intracerebral hemorrhage.

Project description:IntroductionWhile numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in the field of trauma, a substantial portion of them are yielding negative results. One potential contributing factor to this trend could be the lack of agreement regarding the chosen definitions across different trials. The primary objective was to identify the terminology and definitions utilized for the characterization of multiple trauma patients within randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2002, and July 31, 2022. RCTs or RTCs protocols were eligible if they included multiple trauma patients. The terms employed to characterize patient populations were identified, and the corresponding definitions for these terms were extracted. The subsequent impact on the population recruited was then documented to expose clinical heterogeneity.ResultsFifty RCTs were included, and 12 different terms identified. Among these terms, the most frequently used were "multiple trauma" (n = 21, 42%), "severe trauma" (n = 8, 16%), "major trauma" (n = 4, 8%), and trauma with hemorrhagic shock" (n = 4, 8%). Only 62% of RCTs (n = 31) provided a definition for the terms used, resulting a total of 21 different definitions. These definitions primarily relied on the injury severity score (ISS) (n = 15, 30%), displaying an important underlying heterogeneity. The choice of the terms had an impact on the study population, affecting both the ISS and in-hospital mortality. Eleven protocols were included, featuring five different terms, with "severe trauma" being the most frequent, occurring six times (55%).ConclusionThis systematic review uncovers an important heterogeneity both in the terms and in the definitions employed to recruit trauma patients within RCTs. These findings underscore the imperative of promoting the use of a unique and consistent definition.

Project description:BackgroundA randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains the pinnacle of clinical research design. However, RCTs in neurosurgery, especially those comparing surgery to non-operative treatment, are rare and their relevance and applicability have been questioned. This study set out to assess trial design and quality and identify their influence on outcomes in recent neurosurgical trials that compare surgery to non-operative treatment.MethodsFrom 2000 to 2017, PubMed and Embase databases and four trial registries were searched. RCTs were evaluated for study design, funding, adjustments to reported outcome measures, accrual of patients, and academic impact.ResultsEighty-two neurosurgical RCTs were identified, 40 in spine disorders, 19 neurovascular and neurotrauma, 11 functional neurosurgery, ten peripheral nerve, and two pituitary surgery. Eighty-four RCTs were registered, of which some are ongoing. Trial registration rate differed per subspecialty. Funding was mostly from non-industry institutions (58.5%), but 25.6% of RCTs did not report funding sources. 36.4% of RCTs did not report a difference between surgical and non-operative treatment, 3.7% favored non-operative management. Primary and secondary outcome measures were changed in 13.2% and 34.2% of RCTs respectively and varied by subspecialty. 41.9% of RCTs subtracted ≥ 10% of the anticipated accrual and 12.9% of RCTs added ≥ 10%. 7.3% of registered RCTs were terminated, mostly due to too slow recruitment. Subspecialty, registration, funding, masking, population size, and changing outcome measures were not significantly associated with a reported benefit of surgery. High Jadad scores (≥ 4) were negatively associated with a demonstration of surgical benefit (P < 0.05).ConclusionsNeurosurgical RCTs comparing surgical to non-operative treatment often find a benefit for surgical treatment. Changes to outcome measurements and anticipated accrual are common and funding sources are not always reported.

Project description:Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine.SynthesisA total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia.ConclusionThere is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.

Dataset Information

The acute management of trauma hemorrhage: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The acute management of trauma hemorrhage: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets