ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Prehospital transfusion: an 8-year descriptive retrospective monocenter study.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemorrhagic shock (HS) is a critical prehospital condition. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the Red Flag criteria on scene versus clinical judgment (gestalt) at initial call for massive transfusion (MT). Secondary aims included determining the proportion of prehospital interventions with packed red blood cells (pRBCs) units and to describe the characteristics of patients for whom dispatch physicians decided to send mobile prehospital team with pRBCs.
methodsA retrospective study in a French tertiary care hospital (2015-2023) analyzed prehospital interventions involving RBCs. MT was defined as the transfusion of ≥ 4 pRBCs or fresh frozen plasma units within 24 h. The data included demographics, clinical parameters, and outcomes. The predictive performance of the gestalt and Red flag criteria was compared via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsAmong 38,128 interventions, 105 (0.3%) involved 2 pRBCs units transport and 11 (5%) pRBCs units were discarded. Seventy-four (72%) patients were men, median age was 50 (28-67) years old and trauma was the reason for intervention for 67 (65%) patients. A total of 69 (67%) patients received prehospital transfusion: 39 (57%) were trauma patients. The dispatch physician's gestalt score had an AUROC of 0.81, and the Red Flags criteria had an AUCROC of 0.80 in predicting MT within 24 h for trauma patients (p = 0.69).
conclusionGestalt and Red Flag criteria showed similar ability to predict massive transfusion, but gestalt requires experience and lacks reproducibility. Our results advocate for the implementation of standardized decision tools to guide prehospital transfusion practices. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.