The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A randomised controlled trial of prehospital intravenous fluid replacement therapy in serious trauma.
Open accessAbstract
RESULTS: In total 1309 patients were entered in the study: 699 (53.4%) were treated by paramedics operating protocol A and 610 (46.6%) were treated by paramedics operating protocol B. The randomisation worked well and there were no significant differences between treatment groups in incident characteristics, ambulance performance times, or patient or injury characteristics, apart from slightly more moderate or severe head injuries in the protocol A group (25.3% versus 20.3%). Protocol compliance was poor, with only 31% of protocol A patients receiving prehospital fluids and only 80% of protocol B patients not given fluids. The estimated odds ratio for being given prehospital fluids when treated by protocol A compared to protocol B was 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.53 to 2.81). MORTALITY: There were 73 deaths within 6 months in the 699 patients in the protocol A group (10.4%), and 60/610 (9.8%) in the protocol B group. Thus the crude odds ratio for deaths when managed by protocol A was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.54). Excluding 26 patients whose cause of death may not have been trauma related, the odds ratio was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.69 to 1.55). Excluding 17 patients who may have been dead on arrival of the ambulance at the scene the odds ratio was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.53). Adjustment for age, injury severity and whether the patient was unconscious at the scene did not significantly alter these odds ratios. COMPLICATIONS: A total of 106 patients were identified from hospital notes as having at least one of eight major complications (adult respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, acute renal failure, coagulopathy, wound infection, pneumonia, fat embolism or pulmonary embolism). The proportions with recorded complications were similar in the two groups: 60/699 (8.5%) in the protocol A group versus 46/610 (7.5%) in the protocol B group. HEALTH STATUS: A total of 878 questionnaires were sent to patients, and 559 (64%) usable replies were received. The response rate was similar in the two groups (62.9% versus 64.6%). In all eight dimensions of the SF-36 health status measure patients who had been managed by paramedics operating protocol A reported better average health than did patients in the protocol B group. However, none of the differences were at a level considered clinically important and only for one of the eight dimensions was the difference statistically significant. COMPOSITE OUTCOMES: No significant differences in outcome were found between the two protocol groups in terms of patients who either died or had serious complications, nor for patients who either died or had known poor health. SUBGROUPS: Subgroups of patients were defined on eight characteristics (ambulance service area, whether a doctor was on scene, paramedic-patient contact time, injury severity, whether taken to theatre for emergency surgery, type of injuries, type of area, and whether the patient was treated before or after protocol cross-over). There was no evidence of any difference in mortality rates or composite outcomes between any subgroups, or between protocols within any subgroup. Time to A&E department The analysis suggests that patients given fluids spent 12-13 minutes longer at the accident scene than did patients not given fluids. However, because only one-quarter of patients were given fluids, and the specific protocol used made little difference to this, average on-scene times were largely unaffected by protocols. COSTS: In the prehospital and immediate-care phase (including A&E treatment), the mean costs of the protocol A and protocol B groups were ¿419 and ¿416, respectively. This small difference reflects two small and offsetting effects of protocol B: reduced on-scene time (p = 0.08) and increased use of blood in the A&E department (p = 0.03). There were no other statistically significant differences in costs, with the mean total costs being ¿2706 and ¿2678 in the protocol A and protocol B groups, respectively (p = 0.52). (ABSTRACT TRUNCA
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001 · Cited by 7,193
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
(2016) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190492939.001.0001 · Cited by 1,552
A Note on Misconceptions Concerning Prospective and Retrospective Power
Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (1998) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00139 · Cited by 121
Cited by
Management of bleeding following major trauma: an updated European guideline
Rossaint, R., Bouillon, B., Cerny, V., Coats, T. J., Duranteau, J., Fernández-Mondéjar, E., Hunt, B. J., Komadina, R., Nardi, G., Neugebauer, E., et al. (2010) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc8943 · Cited by 818
Management of bleeding following major trauma: a European guideline
Spahn, D. R., Cerny, V., Coats, T. J., Duranteau, J., Fernández-Mondéjar, E., Gordini, G., Stahel, P. F., Hunt, B. J., Komadina, R., Neugebauer, E., et al. (2007) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc5686 · Cited by 437
Kleinman, M. E., de Caen, A. R., Chameides, L., Atkins, D. L., Berg, R. A., Berg, M. D., Bhanji, F., Biarent, D., Bingham, R., Coovadia, A. H., et al. (2010) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2010-2972a · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Turner, Nicholl, Webber, Cox, Dixon, & Yates
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 31
- Pages
- 1-57
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W4360754094
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A randomised controlled trial of prehospital intravenous fluid replacement therapy in serious trauma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta4310
- The paper
- Turner, Nicholl, Webber, Cox, Dixon, & Yates. (2000). A randomised controlled trial of prehospital intravenous fluid replacement therapy in serious trauma. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta4310
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.