Evaluating the Tactical Combat Casualty Care principles in civilian and military settings: systematic review, knowledge gap analysis and recommendations for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines detail resuscitation practices in prehospital and austere environments. We sought to review the content and quality of the current TCCC and civilian prehospital literature and characterize knowledge gaps to offer recommendations for future research. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies assessing intervention techniques and devices used in civilian and military prehospital settings that could be applied to TCCC guidelines. Screening and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal was conducted using appropriate tools. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent (n=57) of studies were observational. Most randomized trials had low risk of bias, whereas observational studies had higher risk of bias. Interventions of massive hemorrhage control (n=17) were wound dressings and tourniquets, suggesting effective hemodynamic control. Airway management interventions (n=7) had high success rates with improved outcomes. Interventions of respiratory management (n=12) reported low success with needle decompression. Studies assessing circulation (n=18) had higher quality of evidence and suggested improved outcomes with component hemostatic therapy. Hypothermia prevention interventions (n=2) were generally effective. Other studies identified assessed the use of extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (n=3) and mixed interventions (n=2). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence was largely non-randomized with heterogeneous populations, interventions, and outcomes, precluding robust conclusions in most subjects addressed in the review. Knowledge gaps identified included the use of blood products and concentrate of clotting factors in the prehospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.
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 | 0.100 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".