ArticleResuscitation plus2023
A comparative analysis of current out-of-hospital transfusion protocols to expert recommendations.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alternative models of consent in out-of-hospital transfusion trials: a CAN-PATT position statement supporting exception from prospective consent with opt-out notification.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Best practices on blood and blood products for a prehospital hemorrhage protocol: consensus from the 2025 Canadian prehospital transfusion summit.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- The role of freeze-dried plasma in a world of whole blood: a Canadian prehospital and transport perspective.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Rationale, development and feasibility of a national prehospital transfusion registry.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare current out-of-hospital transfusion (OHT) protocols in Canadian civilian critical care transport organizations (CCTO) to expert recommendations and explore the variability and potential benefits of standardizing OHT practices across Canada. Methods: A comprehensive cross-sectional study was conducted, encompassing all seven Canadian CCTOs that provide OHT. The study assessed adherence to expert recommendations and examined specific aspects of the transfusion process, such as indications for transfusion and cessation criteria. Results: The study found an 89% adherence to expert recommendations for OHT among Canadian CCTOs. It highlighted a strong alignment between current practices and recommendations, possibly attributed to collaborative frameworks like the CAN-PATT network. However, notable variability and ambiguity were observed in transfusion indications and cessation criteria. The study also emphasized the potential benefits of standardizing OHT practices, such as improved policy formulation, better interpretation of emerging literature, and evaluation of OHT efficacy. Conclusion: This cross-sectional study assessed how Canadian CCTOs implement OHT practices compared to expert-recommended practices. The findings underscore the importance of structured protocols in trauma management. Given the consistency in OHT protocol adoption and the comprehensive approach across CCTOs, there's a solid foundation for managing trauma patients in prehospital and transport settings across Canada. As OHT practices continue to evolve, sustained efforts are vital to refine, adapt, and elevate patient care standards in trauma management.
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.