ArticleBMC emergency medicine2021
Laypeople perception and interpretation of simulated life-threatening bleeding: a controlled experimental study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in admission to trauma centres by sex among adults with traumatic brain injury: a population-based cohort study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- From spectator to lifesaver: a six-month evaluation of bystander training in CPR and bleeding control.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Dynamics of Local Temperature in the Fingertips After the Cuff Occlusion Test: Infrared Diagnosis of Adaptation Reserves to Hypoxia and Assessment of Survivability of Victims at Massive Blood Loss.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFirst aid performed by immediate responders can be the difference between life and death in the case of trauma with massive bleeding. To develop effective training programs to teach bleeding control to laypersons, it is important to be aware of beliefs and misconceptions people hold on bleeding and severity of bleeding situations.
methodA controlled study was conducted in which 175 American college students viewed 78 video clips of simulated bleeding injuries. The volume of blood present (between 0 and 1900 ml), rate of blood flow, and victim gender were systematically varied within participants. Participants were asked to rate injury severity, indicate the appropriate first aid action, and estimate the amount of time until death for the victim.
resultsThough the Stop the Bleed® campaign recommends training laypeople to treat 165 ml of blood loss as life threatening, participants largely rated this volume of blood loss as minimal, mild, or moderate and estimated that the victim had just under one hour to live. Increased blood loss was associated with increased recommendations to use a tourniquet. However, in the 1900 ml conditions, participants still estimated that victims had around 22 minutes to live and approximately 15% recommended direct pressure as the intervention. Severity ratings and recommendations to use a tourniquet were also higher for the male victim than the female victim.
conclusionsInjury classification, intervention selection, and time to death-estimations revealed that training interventions should connect classifications of blood loss to appropriate action and focus on perceptions of how much time one has to respond to a bleeding. The study also revealed a gender related bias in terms of injury classification and first aid recommendations. Bleeding control training programs can be designed to address identified biases and misconceptions while building on existing knowledge and commonly used terminology.
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.