ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2026
Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in combat and austere environments.
Article in World journal of critical care 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-compressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH) is a leading cause of preventable death in austere environments. Extended evacuation times prioritize far-forward hemorrhage control. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) preserves proximal perfusion, shifting from specialized centers to prehospital combat settings.
aimTo investigate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of REBOA for NCTH in combat and austere environments.
methodsA PRISMA-ScR-guided scoping review searched five databases, with reference-list screening of included studies and key reviews, of humans receiving REBOA for NCTH in combat, prehospital, or austere environments. Two independent reviewers extracted patient characteristics, procedural parameters, and clinical outcomes. Quality was assessed
resultsFrom 1138 records, 8 studies, met criteria: 35 individually reported cases and 15 eligible cases from one registry cohort, of 50. Because the registry reported aggregate data only, all denominators below refer to the 35 individually reported cases. Casualties were predominantly young men in severe hemorrhagic shock after penetrating or blast injury. Access was
conclusionREBOA has been utilized in select combat and austere casualties, demonstrating hemodynamic improvement. However, this uncontrolled evidence precludes conclusions regarding efficacy or superiority, thereby not supporting its routine clinical deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.