Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2025
A randomised controlled trial of verbal guidance versus verbal guidance supplemented by a photographic aid for bystander identification of intramuscular tranexamic acid injection sites in a simulated road injury scenario.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundNon-compressible haemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable death following road injury. Tranexamic acid (TXA), when administered early, improves survival. Intramuscular (IM) administration offers a feasible route for early administration by lay bystanders. However, the ability of bystanders to correctly identify safe IM injection sites remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether verbal guidance supplemented by a photographic aid improves the accuracy of site identification in a simulated road injury scenario.
methodsIn this randomised controlled trial, 64 lay participants were recruited on a university campus and randomised to receive either (1) verbal guidance alone or (2) verbal guidance plus photographic aid to locate the deltoid injection site on a simulated injured person. Site identification was assessed via sticker placement, and three expert raters with diverse medical backgrounds independently reviewed standardised photographs to determine site safety using a majority agreement rule. The primary outcome was safe site identification. A binomial generalised linear model assessed the association between intervention group and correct site identification. Inter-rater reliability was measured using Fleiss' Kappa.
resultsParticipants in the verbal guidance plus photographic aid group were significantly more likely to identify a safe injection site compared to those receiving verbal guidance alone (87.5% vs. 62.5%; OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.33, 19.92, p = 0.03). The presence of concerns regarding site safety was also significantly lower in the photo and verbal group (18.8% vs. 53.1%, p = 0.002). No significant associations were found between accuracy and participant age, gender, prior training, or confidence.
conclusionsSupplementing verbal guidance with a photographic aid significantly improves bystander accuracy in identifying safe IM TXA injection sites in a simulated setting. This finding supports the potential integration of visual aids into emergency dispatch protocols to enhance early haemorrhage control in trauma care. Further research is needed to assess real-world application and impact. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN41280918.
trial registrationISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN41280918, 08/08/2025 Retrospectively registered.
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.