Does early transfusion of cold-stored whole blood reduce the need for component therapy in civilian trauma patients? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Civilian acute trauma care has advanced in recent decades; however, traumatic injury remains the leading cause of death in individuals aged 15 to 29 years in the United States and worldwide. Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading preventable cause of death in trauma patients, with up to half of these deaths occurring before reaching a medical facility. The timely application of hemorrhage control measures is critical to enhance the survivability of trauma patients and is one of the major challenges faced by medical providers in austere environments. The purpose of this review is to explore if early resuscitation with cold-stored whole blood therapy reduces the need for component therapy in the first 24 hours postinjury in the civilian population. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search in Medline, EMBASE, and Transfusion Evidence Library for studies reporting data on 24-hour blood product usage in trauma patients in hemorrhagic shock receiving initial therapy with whole blood. Two reviewers independently performed the selection of eligible studies. RESULTS: Of a total of 2,150 identified studies, 11 studies (n = 4,792) met the inclusion criteria. There was heterogeneity in the study design, interventions, and outcomes. Seven studies reported a statistically significant decrease in 24-hour transfusion requirements in the whole blood intervention group in comparison with the control component therapy group. Three studies reported no significant difference between the two groups. One of the studies reported an increase in 24-hour transfusion requirements in the whole blood group. CONCLUSION: Overall, there appears to be a decrease in component therapy use following initial resuscitation with whole blood in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock. However, further research is needed to address this important practical question (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023422173). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review; Level IV.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".