MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Possible Tourniquet Systems for Use in the Canadian Forces

2006· article· en· W1991996711 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roger King, Dennis Filips, Sandra Blitz, Sarvesh Logsetty

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsTourniquetMedicineAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Hemorrhage from extremity wounds is the leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Tourniquets have been identified as the most reasonable option for controlling life threatening extremity hemorrhage in the tactical phase of an operation. The purpose of this trial was to determine which tourniquet systems are effective under simulated combat conditions and make recommendations to the Canadian Forces (CF) on an approach to tourniquet use. METHODS: 5 tourniquet systems were tested: Self Applied Tourniquet System (SATS); One-Handed Tourniquet (OHT); tie & cravat Improvised Tourniquet (IT); pneumatic Emergency Medical Tourniquet (EMT); and latex surgical tubing (ST). On June 25, 2004, ten junior medics from 1 Field Ambulance volunteered for the study. They were divided into five groups of two and rotated through all tourniquets. Each group was timed on the speed of application, and effectiveness of the tourniquets on the lower limbs was determined by a Doppler probe and loss of palpable pulses. Subjective analysis by questionnaire was used to determine ease of use, durability, portability, patient comfort, and preference. RESULTS: Occlusion of the posterior tibial pulse, as measured by Doppler flow, occurred 0-10% of the time with the OHT, 40-50% with the SATS and IT, 70-80% with the EMT, and 90% with the ST. The presence of winter clothing did not change the effectiveness of the tourniquets. The OHT, SATS, IT, and EMT took an average of 30-40 seconds to apply while the ST took only 24 seconds. From most painful to least were: the IT (severe pain-could not tolerate); ST and SATS (moderate-severe pain); OHT (minor-moderate pain); and EMT (no pain-minor discomfort). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective tourniquets were the EMT and ST. The ST is also the lightest, fastest, easiest to learn, and the cheapest but it causes a lot of pain and presumably, local tissue damage. ST can be issued to every soldier with a minimum of training and used effectively in the "Care Under Fire" phase. The EMT, which causes the least pain and is equally effective, can be applied during the "Tactical Field Care" phase by the medic to replace the surgical tubing. Fine adjustments can be made to the EMT, which allows the medic to safely deflate the device, assess the wound, determine if a tourniquet is required, and re-inflate quickly if necessary.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207