MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411932350 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000004683

Scoping review and recommendation to establish standardized best practices for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in combat casualties: A North Atlantic Treaty Organization exploratory team report

2025· article· en· W4411932350 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel M. Russo, Johan Schmitt, Jon Barratt, Andrew Beckett, Paul Rees, Philippe Ariès, Nobuaki Kiriu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Truncal hemorrhage is a major cause of combat-related mortality, with delayed surgical access likely increasing future fatalities. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a technique to temporarily control hemorrhage until surgery can be performed. Differences in management, device selection, and training among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies can compromise patient care during deployments. In response, NATO formed a multinational team of REBOA experts to make recommendations for future efforts to standardize care and enhance interoperability. The team held virtual meetings to assess field use, materiel solutions, training programs, and persistent problems. A scoping review was conducted to identify relevant military medicine studies, including those using preclinical combat injury models, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework. Contributions came from published work, gray literature, and expert input. Experts from seven countries participated, identifying 52 key studies, 47 published combat uses, and 14 unpublished cases from Ukraine. Of the multitude of available catheters, only one had recent combat use cases for prolonged partial occlusion, and none were published. Unlike other countries, the United States and the United Kingdom possessed military-specific REBOA guidelines; however, both were outdated and assumed air superiority. Training programs varied significantly, with no standardized approach across NATO. Courses differed in the instructional method, intended audience, content, competencies, and refresher frequency; none included partial REBOA. As such, the Ukrainian military was reliant on training from catheter manufacturers. Arterial access challenges continue to hinder REBOA use. There is a critical need for ongoing data collection from combat to inform best practices. Given the rapid evolution of REBOA devices, the changing landscape of war, and limited published literature on these topics, further NATO research efforts should be applied to develop uniform guidance for REBOA in combat environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.314
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.314
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.014
Bibliometrics0.0340.026
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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