ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Development of a prehospital clinical prediction score for predicting massive blood transfusion in patients with trauma.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most prehospital trauma deaths result from exsanguination. Developing a scoring system to predict massive blood transfusion (MBT) is essential in urban areas of middle- to lower-income developing countries where traffic accidents are frequent. Aim: To develop and validate a clinical score for predicting MBT in prehospital trauma patients. Methods: Data were obtained from emergency medical service (EMS) patient care reports between January 2018 and October 2023. Multiple logistic regression was used to develop the score. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis, and the area under the ROC curve (AuROC) with 95 % confidence interval was reported. Risk groups were defined by positive likelihood ratio (LR + ).Results: Six hundred patients were included. Significant predictors were injury severity score, wound type, serious injury body part, scene distance ≥ 4 km, response time < 8 min, hospital transfer time < 8 min, airway management, and fluid access. The score classified patients into low- (≤3), moderate- (4-9), and high-risk (≥10) groups, with MBT probabilities of 1.6 %, 20.7 %, and 74.2 %, respectively. LR + values were 0.07, 1.08, and 11.87. The AuROC was 0.883. Conclusion: This study derived a prehospital clinical score that demonstrated good discrimination for predicting MBT. Internal validation using bootstrap resampling confirmed the robustness of the model. Nevertheless, external and prospective validation in diverse trauma populations and EMS settings are required before the score can be considered for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.