Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: Risks and benefits of hypotensive resuscitation in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock: a meta-analysis

Study Country Study design Jadad Quality score/Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) Participants Intervention Control
Bickell 1994 USA Single-center, prospective RCT Three out of five
-No double blind
Gunshot or stab wounds to the torso who had SBP<90 mmHg Delayed resuscitation with RLS 10ml/hr until definitive treatment Immediate resuscitation to maintain SBP at least 100 mmHg
Dutton 2002 USA Single-center, prospective RCT Three out of five
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock with SBP <90 mmHg and evidence of ongoing bleeding Low SBP of 70 mmHg Conventional SBP > 100 mmHg
WANG Mei-tang 2007 China Single-center, prospective cohort study Selection: 3
Comparability: 2
Outcome: 2
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock Preoperative SBP approximately 70-80 mmHg Preoperative SBP >90 mmHg
ZHENG Wei-hua 2007 China Single-center, prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited fluid resuscitation (MAP 50-60 mmHg) Aggressive fluid resuscitation (MAP 70 mmHg)
HUA Li-dain 2010 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Severe multiple hemorrhagic shock Limited fluid resuscitation (SBP 70 mmHg) Observational with MAP at least 90/60 mmHg
WANG Aitian 2010 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock Limited fluid resuscitation to maintain SBP 70 mmHg Conventional resuscitation to maintain SBP 100 mmHg
Fan Hai-Peng 2011 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Pelvic fracture with hemorrhagic shock Low MAP 50-60 mmHg or SBP 70-90 mmHg Conventional MAP 60-80 mmHg or SBP >100 mmHg
Morrison 2011 China Single-center, prospective, two-arm, intention to treat, RCT Three out of five
-No double blind
Patients undergoing laparotomy or thoracotomy for blunt and penetrating trauma who had SBP < 9o mmHg Experimental group with MAP 50 mmHg Control group with MAP 65 mmHg
Fan Hai-Peng 2012 China Single-center, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Hepatic and splenic injury with hemorrhagic shock Limited fluid resuscitation (MAP 50-60 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (SBP 100 mmHg or MAP 60-80 mmHg)
LI Wenhao 2012 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock without controlling bleeding Limited fluid resuscitation (MAP 55 mmHg) Adequate fluid resuscitation (MAP 75mm Hg)
Chen Mu-hu 2013 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited fluid resuscitation (SBP 70 mmHg) Aggressive fluid resuscitation (SBP 90 mmHg)
ZHAO yong-gang 2013 China Retrospective cohort study Selection: 4
Comparability: 2
Outcome: 2
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Objective group (SBP 85 mmHg, limited fluid) Control group (SBP >90 mmHg, rapid and full replenishment of fluid
WANG Xiao-guo 2014 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic liver and splenic injury Limited fluid resuscitation (MAP 50-70 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (MAP 70-90 mmH)
ZENG Fan-yuan 2014 China Single-center, cohort study Selection: 4
Comparability: 2
Outcome: 2
Uncontrolled traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Experimental group (MAP 50 mmHg) Control group (MAP 70 mmHg)
Chen Mianzhan 2015 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited resuscitation (SBP at least 80 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (SBP at least 90 mmHg)
Chen Yuan-bing, 2015 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited resuscitation (SBP 70 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (SBP >90 mmHg)
Huang Ting 2015 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock Control group with MAP 40-60 mmHg Observation group with MAP 60-90 mmHg
Schreiber 2015 USA Multi-center, RCT Three out of five
-No double blind
Blunt or penetrating trauma patients with SBP <90 mmHg Administer 250 ml of fluid if SBP <70 mmHg or absent radial pulse Administer 2 liters initially and additional fluid as needed to maintain SBP > 110 mmHg
Wen Zhen-jie 2015 China Multi-center, prospective cohort studies Selection: 4
Comparability: 2
Outcome: 2
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock Limited fluid resuscitation (SBP 75 mmHg) Conventional fluid resuscitation (SBP > 100 mmHg)
XU Guoping 2015 China Single center, prospective RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited fluid resuscitation (MAP 40-60 mmHg or SBP 70 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (MAP 60-80 mmHg or SBP > 90 mmHg)
YAO Jian-hui 2015 China Single center, prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Multiple traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited fluid resuscitation (MAP 40-50 mmHg) Active fluid resuscitation (MAP 60-80 mmHg)
Carrick 2016 USA Single-center, prospective, two-arm, intention-to-treat, RCT Three out of five
-No double blind
Penetrating trauma patients with SBP < 90 mmHg who were brought emergently to OR for bleeding control Keep low MAP (MAP 50 mmHg) Keep normotension (MAP at least 65 mmHg)
Dai Yulong, 2016 China Prospective, RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Traumatic hemorrhagic shock patients Limited fluid resuscitation (SBP 65 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (SBP 90 mmHg)
Wang Fengyong 2016 China Single center, prospective RCT Two out of five
-No method of randomization
-No double blind
Active hemorrhagic shock Limited fluid resuscitation (maintain MAP 40-60 mmHg) Conventional resuscitation (maintain MAP 60-90 mmHg)