ArticleTransfusion2026
From battlefield to community: Simulation-based education for walking blood bank whole blood transfusion.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundField transfusion of whole blood is vital for patients in hemorrhagic shock, particularly in austere or resource-limited environments. Military use of warm fresh whole blood (WFWB) has inspired civilian interest in walking blood banks (WBBs) for rural, prehospital, and mass casualty settings where blood product access is limited. However, standardized training and proficiency benchmarks are lacking. This project developed a checklist and established validity evidence to assess provider proficiency in WFWB collection and transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsA multidisciplinary panel created a checklist and modified an existing training video for WFWB collection and transfusion. Using simulation, medical students, nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians, and emergency medical service providers were evaluated to validate the checklist and define proficiency thresholds. Participants (n = 41) were categorized as novice (n = 12), intermediate (n = 13), or expert (n = 16) based on experience. After reviewing the video, participants performed simulated procedures graded by independent evaluators. The maximum score was 47 points, with competency defined by expert performance.
resultsAnalyses of variance revealed significant differences between novice and intermediate (p <.01) and novice and expert (p<.01) groups, but not between intermediate and expert (p = .09). Mean rubric scores and completion times were: novice (31/47; 41 min 17 s), intermediate (38/47; 33 min 7 s), expert (41/47; 29 min 19 s). The competency threshold was set at 41/47 and 33 min 27 s. DISCUSSION: The validated checklist and training video provide a foundation for standardized WFWB education and proficiency assessment, supporting safe WBB implementation in military and civilian settings.
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.