ArticleBritish paramedic journal2018
Visual estimation of blood loss by UK pre-hospital clinicians: an observational study.
Article in British paramedic journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning in Assessing Intraoperative Blood Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International nursing review · 2026Pooled it
- The MAR method versus the visual estimation method in predicting external blood loss: a randomized controlled study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Development of the Aerial Remote Triage System using drones in mass casualty scenarios: A survey of international experts.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the accuracy of visual estimation of external blood loss by UK pre-hospital clinicians and to comment on its value during handover.
methodsA sample of 104 pre-hospital clinicians were shown eight staged scenarios showing varying amounts of blood loss and asked to estimate the amount of blood loss depicted. Participants included a range of pre-hospital clinicians from both NHS ambulance trusts and Helicopter Emergency Medical Services.
resultsA wide distribution of estimates and therefore percentage error was observed in our study. Pre-hospital clinicians are inaccurate when estimating external blood loss at scene, regardless of training and skill level.
conclusionVisual estimation of blood loss is too inaccurate to be considered clinically worthwhile. Greater research focus is needed to investigate and validate better measures of blood loss that can be utilised in the pre-hospital and emergency medicine environment. Until evidence-based methods of estimation can be implemented, this information should not be included in hospital handovers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.