| Title |
Effectiveness of non invasive external pelvic compression: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-016-0259-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peyman Bakhshayesh, Tarek Boutefnouchet, Anna Tötterman |
| Abstract |
Pelvic fractures might carry a significant risk of bleeding. A wide variety of pelvic binders together with pelvic sheets are available and offer an adjunct to the initial management of poly-trauma patients with pelvic injuries. These devices are collectively referred to as pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs). The aim of this study was to review the literature for evidence pertinent to the efficacy and safety of PCCDs. Using the PRISMA guidelines a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus was carried out. Articles included were in English language and published between 1999 and 2015. Studies included were appraised with narrative data synthesis. Seven articles addressed mechanical properties of non-invasive external mechanical devices, six articles focused on physiological aspects, and three studies evaluated the pressure characteristics of these devices. We found 4 case reports regarding adverse effects. None of the studies identified addressed the cost effectiveness or pain relief issues related to the use of PCCDs. Based on available literature, PCCDs are widely used in the initial management of patients with suspected pelvic bleeding. There is evidence to suggest that external compression reduces disrupted pelvic rings. There are some complications reported following application of PCCDs. Hemorrhagic source and physiological effectiveness of PCCDs needs to be addressed in future studies. In the meantime judicious application of PCCDs will continue to be recommended. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 14 | 25% |
| Australia | 9 | 16% |
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Spain | 3 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Greece | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 32% |
| Scientists | 5 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 46 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 48 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2023.
All research outputs
#768,865
of 24,907,378 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#47
of 1,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,681
of 341,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#2
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,907,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.