MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414702950 · doi:10.1186/s12873-025-01323-8

A randomised controlled trial of verbal guidance versus verbal guidance supplemented by a photographic aid for bystander identification of intramuscular tranexamic acid injection sites in a simulated road injury scenario

2025· article· en· W4414702950 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Nutbeam, Emily Foote, Lauren R. Rodgers, Jessica Thomas-Mourne, Rob Fenwick

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranexamic acidRandomized controlled trialBystander effectRandomizationPoison controlMEDLINEIdentification (biology)Injury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Non-compressible haemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable death following road injury. Tranexamic acid (TXA), when administered early, improves survival. Intramuscular (IM) administration offers a feasible route for early administration by lay bystanders. However, the ability of bystanders to correctly identify safe IM injection sites remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether verbal guidance supplemented by a photographic aid improves the accuracy of site identification in a simulated road injury scenario. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, 64 lay participants were recruited on a university campus and randomised to receive either (1) verbal guidance alone or (2) verbal guidance plus photographic aid to locate the deltoid injection site on a simulated injured person. Site identification was assessed via sticker placement, and three expert raters with diverse medical backgrounds independently reviewed standardised photographs to determine site safety using a majority agreement rule. The primary outcome was safe site identification. A binomial generalised linear model assessed the association between intervention group and correct site identification. Inter-rater reliability was measured using Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: Participants in the verbal guidance plus photographic aid group were significantly more likely to identify a safe injection site compared to those receiving verbal guidance alone (87.5% vs. 62.5%; OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.33, 19.92, p = 0.03). The presence of concerns regarding site safety was also significantly lower in the photo and verbal group (18.8% vs. 53.1%, p = 0.002). No significant associations were found between accuracy and participant age, gender, prior training, or confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementing verbal guidance with a photographic aid significantly improves bystander accuracy in identifying safe IM TXA injection sites in a simulated setting. This finding supports the potential integration of visual aids into emergency dispatch protocols to enhance early haemorrhage control in trauma care. Further research is needed to assess real-world application and impact. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN41280918. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN41280918, 08/08/2025 Retrospectively registered.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Emergency MedicineSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207