ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
Prehospital Blood Administration in Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2025. 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.
- Prehospital Resuscitation with Type O Whole Blood for Trauma and Hemorrhage.The New England journal of medicine · 2026Trial
- Cognitive Biases in Early Trauma Transfusions: Lessons From Three Rare Cases of Acute Hemolytic Reaction.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Unequal access to timely care: Geographic variation in prehospital time among injured patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock.Transfusion · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the military's advancement of prehospital blood into the field, civilian prehospital blood programs are becoming more prevalent. However, there are significant differences between civilian and military prehospital operations that should be considered. Civilian prehospital systems also vary widely in terms of resources, transport times, and patient types. Given these variations and the logistical challenges associated with establishing a prehospital blood program, careful consideration of the state of the science is warranted. Although blood is the preferred fluid for patients in hemorrhagic shock, there have only been a few high-quality studies that have examined the efficacy of administering blood in the prehospital setting. Given the conflicting results of these studies, individual medical directors must determine whether the risk-benefit analysis for their system warrants establishing such a resource-intensive operation. Efforts to establish a prehospital blood program should not supersede attempts to optimize the fundamental components of trauma operations and 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.