Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40851079›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

The MAR method versus the visual estimation method in predicting external blood loss: a randomized controlled study.

Betul Akbuga Ozel, Gurkan Ozel, Elmas Burcu Mamak Ekinci, Ahmet Eren Demirtola, Gizem Sahin, Gokcen Aksoy, Ilke Yanikyurek, Mehmet Ufuk Karaaslan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Betul Akbuga OzelDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Bilkent City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. betulaozel@gmail.com.
Gurkan OzelCounty of Renfrew Paramedic Services, ON, Renfrew, Canada.
Elmas Burcu Mamak EkinciDepartment of Computer Engineering, Baskent University Faculty of Engineering, Ankara, Turkey.
Ahmet Eren DemirtolaBaskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Gizem SahinBaskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Gokcen AksoyBaskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Ilke YanikyurekBaskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Mehmet Ufuk KaraaslanBaskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately estimating blood loss is critical for managing hemorrhagic shock in prehospital and hospital settings. The Visual Estimation (VE) method is widely used, while the MAR method proposes using a fist measurement to estimate external blood on flat surfaces. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled, and educational study was conducted involving 140 medical and paramedic students. The study compared the accuracy and duration of blood loss estimates made with the MAR and VE methods. The secondary objective was to assess whether MAR estimates varied by participants' height, weight, or gender. Three simulated stations featured three different, non-absorbent, flat surfaces containing 75 mL, 150 mL, or 750 mL of blood. Participants were divided into two groups (Group 1: VE method, n

Indexed as

HemorrhageAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultClinical skill trainingEmergency medicineExternal blood lossMAR methodRandomized controlled studyVisual estimation

Identifiers

PMID40851079
PMCPMC12375695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.