Tourniquet application by schoolchildren—a randomized crossover study of three commercially available models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life-threatening hemorrhage is a major cause of preventable mortality in trauma. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of commercial tourniquets when used by adult civilians. However, there are no data about tourniquet application by children.This study's goal is to determine which of three commercially available tourniquets is most effective when used by children. METHODS: A randomized crossover study was conducted in four elementary schools in Montreal to compare three commercially available tourniquets. The study population is primary school children aged 10 to 12 years (5th-6th grade). A total of 181 students were invited to participate; 96 obtained parental approval and were recruited. Participants underwent a short 7-minute video training on the use of three commercial tourniquets and were subsequently given a 2-minute practice period. Students were evaluated on their ability to successfully apply the tourniquet and the time to complete application. After applying all three tourniquets, the students selected their favorite model. The primary outcome is the proportion of successful applications per tourniquet model. Secondary outcomes include time to successful application for each tourniquet model and tourniquet model preference. RESULTS: The mechanical advantage tourniquet (MAT) outperformed the combat application tourniquet (CAT) and the stretch wrap and tuck tourniquet (SWATT) in terms of success rate (MAT, 67%; CAT, 44%; SWATT, 24%; p < 0.0001), time to application (MAT, 57 seconds; CAT, 80 seconds; SWATT, 90 seconds; p < 0.0001), and preference (MAT, 64%; CAT, 30%; SWATT, 6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this study, the MAT performs better in terms of success rate, time to application, and preference when used by school-aged children. This study can be helpful when facilities are purchasing tourniquets for use by students.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".