Talk:Emergency tourniquet

message: "In triage, a person with a tourniquet should be considered "I" for immediate in the START protocol and at least "Yellow" or higher in other protocols." -- in which countries does this apply? Is this an international system or yet another case of US-POV? -- Tarquin 08:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocols

message: Added "Pressure bandage" reference.  The "risks" statement states that several hours of tourniquet use may require amputation.  In all actuality only fifteen minutes could cause extremity death after severe blood loss. Should this be changed and cited?  This is a paragraph that may be yielding information to an immediate user.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.60.115 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubber ? 

message: To be NPOV on this disputed issue we must identify the fact that there is disagreement and present the arguments of both sides. Presently there are no references at all in the article. Each argument must be referenced - there must be a source for each idea presented. The way the contents are laid out, with a major section "Risks of a tourniquet" and then four particular jurisdictions as sub-headings, makes little sense. It's not clear why tourniquets have different risks in different areas. Risks should be clearly identified as physical risks to the patient -- which don't depend on the jurisdiction except in the level of advanced surgery expected there; and legal risks to the person using a tourniquet -- which obviously do depend on the jurisdiction. The actual text in each sub-section is not just talking about the risks of a tourniquet in that area, but rather the reasons why tourniquets are used or not used, and encouraged or not encouraged, in that area. The article often talks about specific practises without indicating where in the world these practises are common. It also often speaks in a tone of instruction instead of a tone of description. For example, "If a tourniquet is used, immediately mark the letter "T" on the victim's forehead with the victim's blood, a marker, pen, or dirt" -- this is clearly bad style. It doesn't say where such a practise is common, or under what system such a practise is mandated. ralmin 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: The information on this article is quite limited and does not even cover the topic of pneumatic tourniquets.  Pneumatic tourniquets are very common in the surgical environment as they allow for precision pressure control.  There is also no discussion of Limb Occlusion Pressure (LOP) which is defined as the minimum tourniquet pressure required to occlude the operative limb.  It has been well established in the tourniquet literature that lower tourniquet pressures are safer.
I intend on expanding this article in the near future with the work of J.A. McEwen, Ph.D., P.Eng., but in the mean time I've included an external link to http://www.tourniquets.org so that users may be able to get up to date information on tourniquets and tourniquet usage.
Michael Gebert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgebert (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Information 

message: This page is devoid of the simple and obvious description of what a tourniquet is - it's design and construction.  These seem to me more substantive to tourniquets than the (also important) differences in tourniquet philosophy in various nations.
68.34.11.192 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: Much of the information on tourniquets is out of date.  For example the national curriculum for EMTs in the United States has tourniquets as the second step after direct pressure for controlling bleeding. The trend is focused on bleeding being worse than any erosible limb damage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.139.71 (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Information 

message: Looks like it's been a while since this article received any TLC. It's full of out-dated information and unsourced myths about tourniquet use. I've started a rewrite using academic journals, and you can track my progress at the sandbox. Would appreciate input from fellow editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflephile (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm essentially proposing a complete rewrite, and I'd love to have input regarding the version in my sandbox. All unsourced and out-dated info has been removed, and I've replaced them with sections on established risks, safety measures, design considerations, and future development. It's a work in progress, to say the least. Wafflephile (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OUTSTANDING!!! This was an amazing improvement! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! And many more thanks for adding those refs back; I didn't have access to them and thus could not verify the content. Wafflephile (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul Proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Emergency tourniquet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140616142948/http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0227/4639/files/Eastridge_Death_on_the_Battlefield_J_Trauma_2012.pdf to http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0227/4639/files/Eastridge_Death_on_the_Battlefield_J_Trauma_2012.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified