ArticleJAMA network open2025
Characteristics, Regional Evaluation, and D-Antigen in Transfusions by Emergency Medical Services.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geographic variation in blood transfusion among TRICARE beneficiaries.Transfusion · 2026Article
- The Feasibility and Safety of Prehospital Whole Blood Administration for Patients in Hemorrhagic Shock in Isolated Regions of Colorado: Assessment of the First 6 Months.World journal of surgery · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Prehospital transfusion (PHT) of blood products by emergency medical services (EMS) has become common in civilian settings. However, variability exists in practices across the US. There are few large-scale data describing US civilian PHT with regard to blood products administered, potential exposure of females of childbearing potential to D-positive blood, or the proportion of PHT cases occurring in EMS transports of short duration. Objective: To evaluate nationwide PHT trends, regional differences, and potential risks, particularly for D-positive blood administration in females of childbearing potential. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, Characteristics, Regional Evaluation, and D-Antigen in Transfusions by EMS (CREDIT-EMS), assessed data collected from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2024 (before hypothesis generation), in trauma and nontrauma patients of all ages treated in 48 states in the US. Exposure: Prehospital-initiated transfusion of blood products. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age, sex, blood product characteristics (including blood type), and transport time. Comparative analyses were conducted using Pearson χ2, Wilcoxon rank sum, and nonparametric trend tests. Proportions were reported with binomial exact 95% CIs. Results: The study analyzed 10 444 patients (median [IQR] age, 45 [29-63] years; 7302 of 10 439 [70.0%] male) who received 18 177 units of blood products. The proportion of transfused units that were whole blood (WB) increased from 10.0% in 2020 to 30.8% in 2024 (P < .001). Regional variations in PHT were identified, with the Northeast having the highest proportion of WB use (33.2% of PHT). A total of 1589 (15.2%; 95% CI, 14.5%-15.9%) of the study patients were females of childbearing potential (aged 12-50 years), with an increasing number receiving D-positive blood products over time (73 of 169 [43.2%] in 2020 to 372 of 497 [74.9%] in 2024) (P < .001). Prehospital times were 20 minutes or less in only 255 of 10 343 cases (2.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of civilian PHT practices in the US found geographic and temporal variability. There was increasing adoption of WB and significant implications for females of childbearing potential who are increasingly likely to receive D-positive PHT. Cases of PHT uncommonly involved short prehospital duration. These findings highlight the need for standardized protocols and further evaluation of risk-benefit considerations.
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.