ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
Efficacy of publicly accessible tourniquets: a systematic review of layperson performance utilizing simulation models.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and retention of extremity and junctional tourniquet training among medical interns.BMC medical education · 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
backgroundA large portion of preventable deaths is a result of uncontrolled bleeding due to a delay in medical intervention. While publicly accessible tourniquets raise the concern of incorrect application by laypeople, tourniquets have proven efficacy and can be effectively applied by bystanders. This systematic review aims to identify if tourniquets applied by laypeople using a basic manikin or tourniquet trainer extremity with little to no training can effectively control bleeding.
methodsThe authors used EBSCOHost to simultaneously search the following databases: Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Ultimate, Academic Search Premier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) with Full Text. Boolean search strategy included tourniquet AND (layperson OR laypeople) AND ((bleeding AND control) OR (hemorrhage AND control) OR "stop the bleed") NOT surgery. The search was limited to January 1, 2013, to August 31, 2023. Inclusion criteria were layperson participants in peer-reviewed randomized controlled or clinical trials, available in English, that assessed at least one outcome measure related to the efficacy of tourniquet application in a simulated context. Articles including duplicate data and those regarding tourniquet use/efficacy in settings other than prehospital care or bleeding control were excluded. Two independent reviewers selected studies according to prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.
resultsThe initial search identified 83 studies, with 10 retained for inclusion in this review. Two different windlass rod tourniquets and one ratcheting strap tourniquet performed the best in terms of successful application by laypeople. Completing formal bleeding control training increased the average application success rate compared to no prior training. The Layperson Audiovisual Assist Tourniquet was the only audiovisual point-of-care aid that significantly increased the rate of successful applications. Just-in-Time visual cards also increased success rates significantly, showing comparable benefits to manufacturer instructions.
conclusionAlthough some laypeople can successfully place tourniquets without prior training, successful placement rates can be improved with point-of-care aids and formal bleeding control training using a basic manikin or tourniquet trainer extremity.
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.