Control of Severe, Life-Threatening External Bleeding in the Out-of-Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Trauma, with resultant bleeding, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world; however, the best possible method of bleeding control by immediate responders is unknown. We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of treatment modalities for severe, life-threatening external bleeding in the out-of-hospital first aid setting. Methods: We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and report results according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative studies and case series investigating adults and children with severe, life-threatening external bleeding who were treated with therapies potentially suitable for first aid providers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence and risk of bias. Outcomes were prioritized by first aid specialists based on importance for patients and decision-makers and included mortality due to bleeding, all-cause mortality, cessation of bleeding, time to cessation of bleeding, a decrease in bleeding, and complications/adverse effects. Results were reported in Evidence Profiles. Results: Of the 1,051 full-text articles screened, 107 were included for analysis including 22,798 patients. The primary methods of bleeding control were tourniquets (n = 49), hemostatic dressings (n = 34), hemostatic devices (n = 14), pressure dressings/bandages/devices (n = 8), pressure points (n = 4), including 2 studies that reported multiple hemorrhage control methods. Overall, certainty of evidence was very low and often relied on indirect evidence and poorly controlled studies. Tourniquets were associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with direct manual pressure. Hemostatic dressings resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than direct manual pressure using standard dressings. Direct manual compression resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than pressure dressings/devices. Conclusion: Overall, data regarding the control of life-threatening bleeding is of very low certainty, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions for treatment by immediate responders. While more robust data is needed on first aid treatments of life-threatening bleeding, this systematic review aggregates the most comprehensive to date to help guide recommendations. Key words: bleeding; hemorrhage; tourniquet; hemostatic dressing; direct pressure
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".