↓ Skip to main content

The Tourniquet Gap: A Pilot Study of the Intuitive Placement of Three Tourniquet Types by Laypersons

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Emergency Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Tourniquet Gap: A Pilot Study of the Intuitive Placement of Three Tourniquet Types by Laypersons
Published in
Journal of Emergency Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.09.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elliot M Ross, Julian G Mapp, Theodore T Redman, Derek J Brown, Chetan U Kharod, David A Wampler

Abstract

The "Stop the Bleed" campaign in the United States advocates for nonmedical personnel to be trained in basic hemorrhage control and that "bleeding control kits" be available in high-risk areas. However, it is not clear which tourniquets are most effective in the hands of laypersons. The objective of this pilot study was to determine which tourniquet type was the most intuitive for a layperson to apply correctly. This project is a randomized study derived from a "Stop the Bleed" education initiative conducted between September 2016 and March 2017. Novice tourniquet users were randomized to apply one of three commercially available tourniquets (Combat Action Tourniquet [CAT; North American Rescue, LLC, Greer, SC], Ratcheting Medical Tourniquet [RMT; m2 Inc., Winooski, VT], or Stretch Wrap and Tuck Tourniquet [SWAT-T; TEMS Solutions, LLC, Salida, CO]) in a controlled setting. Individuals with formal medical certification, prior military service, or prior training with tourniquets were excluded. The primary outcome of this study was successful tourniquet placement. Of 236 possible participants, 198 met the eligibility criteria. Demographics were similar across groups. The rates of successful tourniquet application for the CAT, RMT, and SWAT-T were 16.9%, 23.4%, and 10.6%, respectively (p = 0.149). The most common causes of application failure were: inadequate tightness (74.1%), improper placement technique (44.4%), and incorrect positioning (16.7%). Our pilot study on the intuitive nature of applying commercially available tourniquets found unacceptably high rates of failure. Large-scale community education efforts and manufacturer improvements of tourniquet usability by the lay public must be made before the widespread dissemination of tourniquets will have a significant public health effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 31 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2019.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Emergency Medicine
#2,286
of 3,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,450
of 446,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Emergency Medicine
#30
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.