Visual Blood Loss Estimation Accuracy: Directions for Future Research Based on a Systematic Literature Review

Visual blood loss estimation occurs in a variety of medical contexts and may impact everything from interventions by immediate responders to the likelihood of receiving blood transfusions in a hospital setting. However, research suggests that visual blood loss estimation is inaccurate for laypeople and medical professionals. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic literature review to determine the current state of knowledge on visual blood loss estimation accuracy and identify directions for future research. A structured search resulted in 1799 titles that were subsequently screened. A total of 72 articles were coded for comparison. Based on the evaluation, several gaps were identified, most notably related to factors of the situation that may influence estimation accuracy such as blood flow and victim/patient gender. Directions for future research are proposed based on identified gaps.

Comparison of common perioperative blood loss estimation techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Estimating intraoperative blood loss is one of the daily challenges for clinicians. Despite the knowledge of the inaccuracy of visual estimation by anaesthetists and surgeons, this is still the mainstay to estimate surgical blood loss. This review aims at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of currently used measurement methods. A systematic review of studies on estimation of blood loss was carried out. Studies were included investigating the accuracy of techniques for quantifying blood loss in vivo and in vitro. We excluded nonhuman trials and studies using only monitoring parameters to estimate blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate systematic measurement errors of the different methods. Only studies that were compared with a validated reference e.g. Haemoglobin extraction assay were included. 90 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and were analyzed. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, as only these were conducted with a validated reference. The mixed effect meta-analysis showed the highest correlation to the reference for colorimetric methods (0.93 95% CI 0.91–0.96), followed by gravimetric (0.77 95% CI 0.61–0.93) and finally visual methods (0.61 95% CI 0.40–0.82). The bias for estimated blood loss (ml) was lowest for colorimetric methods (57.59 95% CI 23.88–91.3) compared to the reference, followed by gravimetric (326.36 95% CI 201.65–450.86) and visual methods (456.51 95% CI 395.19–517.83). Of the many studies included, only a few were compared with a validated reference. The majority of the studies chose known imprecise procedures as the method of comparison. Colorimetric methods offer the highest degree of accuracy in blood loss estimation. Systems that use colorimetric techniques have a significant advantage in the real-time assessment of blood loss.