Hemostatic Dressing vs Gauze: The Two Variables That Actually Matter for Procurement | Rusun TacMed

Updated 30 July 2026 · Written for buyers specifying bleeding-control consumables in quantity

Two peer-reviewed swine studies asked more or less the same question. They reached opposite answers.

In one, plain surgical gauze controlled bleeding in eight animals out of eight, while the kaolin dressing managed four out of eight. In the other, plain gauze failed on the first application in every single animal, and the kaolin dressing worked on 93% of them.

Same category of injury. Same category of dressing. Opposite results.

The usual response to a contradiction like that is to pick the study that agrees with you and cite it. The more useful response is to ask what changed between the two experiments — because that variable, not the gauze, is what your purchase decision actually turns on.

Two things changed. Whether anyone applied sustained pressure, and whether the patient could still form a clot.

That is the whole article. Most comparisons of hemostatic dressing vs gauze rank the two products against each other, which is the wrong axis. The products are not really competing. They occupy different points on a decision surface defined by those two variables, and a buyer who understands the surface can specify a mix that costs a fraction of an all-hemostatic kit and performs better where it matters.

We manufacture kaolin hemostatic gauze. Read the section on when not to buy it before you read anything else.

Three Gauze Materials, Three Different Jobs

Before the studies, get the products straight. Buyers routinely conflate three things that are not interchangeable, and one Reddit thread in this space opens with someone asking what compressed gauze is actually for — a question no product page answers, because every product page is selling one of the three.

The naming does not help. “Wound packing gauze,” “trauma gauze,” “combat gauze” and “hemostatic dressing” are used loosely across catalogues, sometimes for the same item and sometimes for three different ones. Read the composition line, not the product name.

Plain gauze and plain packing gauze

Woven or non-woven cotton, sterile, no active ingredient. Sold flat, as plain packing gauze in strips, or rolled. Its job is mechanical: absorb, fill a cavity, and transmit the pressure your hands apply down onto the bleeding vessel.

That last function is the one people forget. Gauze packed into a wound is not a sponge soaking up blood until it stops. It is a tamponade — a physical plug that lets you press on something deep that your fingers cannot reach. The clot forms because pressure holds the vessel walls together long enough for the patient’s own clotting cascade to finish the job.

Nothing about that mechanism requires an additive.

Compressed gauze

The same cotton, vacuum-compressed into a dense brick. Several yards collapse into a package small enough to sit flat in a pouch, which is the entire point: compressed gauze offers the highest ratio of packing material to kit space available, and kit space in an IFAK is the binding constraint.

Compressed gauze is not a lesser hemostatic dressing. It is plain gauze solving a logistics problem. Comparisons framed as combat gauze vs compressed gauze or compressed gauze vs combat gauze tend to treat the compressed roll as the budget option, and that framing loses the reason it exists.

The related question, wound packing gauze vs compressed gauze, is mostly a naming artefact. Most wound packing gauze sold for trauma use is compressed; the phrase describes the intended use, not a different material. Compressed gauze vs wound packing gauze is a distinction without much substance once you read the two spec sheets side by side.

Hemostatic gauze

The same gauze substrate with an active hemostatic agent bonded to it. Two agents dominate. Kaolin, an inert aluminium-silicate clay used in QuikClot Combat Gauze, presents a charged mineral surface that activates Factor XII and accelerates the intrinsic pathway. Chitosan, a crustacean-derived polymer used in Celox, forms an adhesive gel by charge interaction with red cells, working largely independent of the cascade — which is why it is often preferred for anticoagulated patients, and why a shellfish allergy is worth checking where the history is available.

Neither agent replaces pressure or packing technique. Both accelerate a process the patient still has to complete.

So the honest framing of hemostatic gauze vs regular gauze is not “one works and one does not.” Both work by the same tamponade mechanism. One of them additionally shortens the time to clot formation. Whether that shortening changes the outcome depends entirely on the next two sections.

What to read on the spec sheet

Four lines separate a serious product from a cheap one, and none of them is the active agent.

Substrate and construction. Non-woven rayon-polyester holds together when pulled off a formed clot; loosely woven cotton shreds and leaves fibres behind, which restarts the bleed. This is the single most common way a cheap dressing is genuinely worse, and it has nothing to do with kaolin.

Areal weight. Stated in grams per square metre, it tells you how much material you are actually getting per yard. Two products at the same length can differ by a third in mass.

Sterility method and packaging. Irradiation or ethylene oxide, and whether each unit is individually sealed. A bulk-bagged roll is not a sterile single-use item however the catalogue describes it.

Length and fold, discussed further below. Specify both.

A supplier who answers all four without being chased is usually a supplier who has been audited. One who sends a photograph and a price is not.

Two Hemostatic Gauze Studies, Opposite Conclusions

Here is the part almost no comparison article includes: the actual evidence. Of the three ranking pages we examined for this article, none cited a single peer-reviewed study.

Watters 2011 — no pressure, healthy physiology

Watters and colleagues at Oregon Health & Science University built a care-under-fire model. Twenty-four swine, femoral artery injury, 30 seconds of uncontrolled haemorrhage, then packing with standard gauze, Combat Gauze, or Celox Gauze — and deliberately no external pressure afterwards. Animals were resuscitated and monitored for 120 minutes.

The results, verbatim from the abstract: dressing success rates were standard gauze 8/8, Combat Gauze 4/8, Celox Gauze 6/8. Blood loss came in at 260 mL, 374 mL and 204 mL respectively, with p > 0.3 across the groups.

Read that carefully. Plain gauze did not merely hold its own. It posted the highest success rate in the study, and the differences in blood loss were not statistically significant. The authors’ conclusion was blunt: advanced hemostatic dressings “do not perform better than conventional gauze in an injury and application model similar to a care under fire scenario.”

Care under fire means you pack and move. Nobody kneels on the wound for three minutes because somebody is shooting. Strip out the pressure and the kaolin has nothing to work with.

Causey 2012 — pressure applied, patient falling apart

Causey and colleagues asked a different question: does Combat Gauze still work when the patient’s physiology has collapsed?

Seventeen swine were bled to 35% of blood volume, then subjected to a 50-minute supraceliac aortic ischaemia-reperfusion injury with six hours of resuscitation — a protocol designed to produce genuine acidosis, coagulopathy and anaemia rather than a healthy animal with a hole in it. Dressings were applied with pressure.

Standard gauze failed on the first application in 100% of animals. It worked once, on a second attempt. Combat Gauze achieved haemostasis in 93% of first applications and 100% on the second. Rotational thromboelastography found one difference between the groups: a shorter clotting time with the kaolin dressing.

The authors concluded that Combat Gauze “significantly outperforms standard gauze dressings in a model of major vascular hemorrhage in acidotic and coagulopathic conditions.”

Why they disagree

Neither study is wrong. They tested different corners of the same decision surface.

Watters removed pressure and used physiologically normal animals. In that corner, the active agent contributes nothing measurable, because the limiting factor was tamponade and plain gauze provides tamponade perfectly well.

Causey applied pressure and destroyed the animals’ ability to clot. In that corner, tamponade alone was not enough — plain gauze failed every first attempt — and shortening the clotting time was the difference between success and failure.

The gauze is not the variable. Pressure and physiology are.

One caution before anyone builds a purchasing policy on this. Both are swine models with small groups, eight and seventeen animals. Absence of a statistically significant difference at that scale is weak evidence of equivalence, and it cuts against us as much as it cuts against the branded products.

Swine are used because the vascular anatomy and clotting behaviour are close enough to human to be informative and the injury can be made identical across animals. Neither is true of human trauma data, which is why the human literature in this field is dominated by case series and registry reviews rather than controlled comparisons. Treat animal results as directional.

What neither study tested is the case most of your buyers will actually meet: a trained responder, applying pressure, on a patient who is bleeding badly but has not yet decompensated. That is the middle of the surface, and the evidence there is thin. If a supplier quotes you a single figure as though it settles the question, ask which corner it came from.

It is worth naming what the Causey team actually measured with rotational thromboelastography, because it is the mechanism the whole argument rests on. Across every other parameter the two groups looked the same. The only difference was clotting time. Kaolin did not make a stronger clot, did not make a more durable one, and did not change the animals’ underlying coagulopathy. It made the clot start sooner. Everything else about the wound, the patient and the packing was unchanged.

That is a narrow claim, and it is the right one to buy on. A product that shortens the interval between packing and clot formation is valuable exactly when that interval is the thing killing the patient — and worth nothing when it is not.

The Two Variables That Decide Which Gauze You Need

Turn the two studies into something you can specify against.

Variable one: can someone hold pressure for three minutes?

Every hemostatic dressing on the market, including ours, assumes at least 3 minutes of firm direct pressure after packing. That is not a manufacturer’s suggestion. It is in the TCCC guidelines, and it is the condition under which every efficacy figure in the literature was generated.

Ask whether your end users will realistically get those three minutes. A workplace responder waiting on an ambulance will. A paramedic with one casualty and two hands will. Someone extracting a casualty under threat, or a lone responder managing airway and bleeding simultaneously, will not.

Where the three minutes are not available, the Watters result applies: you are buying an agent that has no opportunity to act. Spend the money on training and on a second tourniquet instead; procurement teams scaling that line item can review CAT tourniquet bulk supplier options separately from gauze specifications.

Three minutes is longer than it sounds when you are the one counting. Instructors who run bleeding-control courses will tell you that trainees consistently release at ninety seconds because the bleeding has slowed and it looks finished. It is not finished. Releasing early is the most common way a correctly chosen dressing still fails, and no amount of kaolin fixes it.

This is why the pressure question belongs in your specification conversation and not only in your training plan. If your end users cannot commit the time, the honest recommendation changes, and a supplier who never asks about it is not specifying, they are selling.

Variable two: can the patient still clot?

Kaolin works by accelerating the patient’s own cascade. That presupposes there is a cascade to accelerate. Three conditions degrade it, and they arrive together in serious trauma — the so-called lethal triad. Acidosis from hypoperfusion. Hypothermia, which slows enzyme kinetics. And dilutional or consumptive coagulopathy from massive haemorrhage and resuscitation.

Add an anticoagulant on board and the margin shrinks further.

This is the corner Causey tested, and it is the corner where plain gauze failed outright. It is also the corner your buyers cannot predict in advance, which is the honest argument for stocking hemostatic gauze at all: not that it is better, but that it is the only one of the two that still works when the patient is in trouble.

Note what that argument is not. It is not a claim that the branded product outperforms a compliant generic, and nothing in either study speaks to that. Both trials compared an active dressing against plain gauze. Neither compared one kaolin dressing against another.

Where the wound is

A third factor sits underneath both. Junctional bleeding at the groin, axilla or neck cannot be tourniqueted and cannot be reliably reached by hand. Wound packing is the only option, evacuation times are usually long, and both variables tend to be unfavourable at once.

Extremity bleeding has a tourniquet as the first-line answer, which changes the calculus entirely.

The variable buyers forget: time to definitive care

Both studies ran their observation windows to a fixed clock — 120 minutes in one, six hours in the other. In the field that clock is your evacuation time, and it is the quietest input into this decision.

A clot that forms in four minutes and a clot that forms in ninety seconds look identical at the twenty-minute mark if the patient reaches a surgeon. Stretch the transfer to two hours over bad roads and the margin starts to matter, because every re-bleed has to be managed by the same responder with whatever is left in the kit.

Ask your buyers what their realistic evacuation time looks like. Urban EMS with an eight-minute transport sits in a different cell from a remote industrial site, an offshore platform, or a unit operating away from a role-2 facility. The product recommendation follows from that number more than from any figure on a data sheet.

A Decision Matrix for When to Use Hemostatic Gauze

Put the two variables on axes and the answer stops being a matter of opinion. This is the practical form of when to use hemostatic gauze.

Three of the four cells do not require an active agent.

That is not an argument against stocking it. It is an argument for knowing which cell your buyers operate in, because most procurement specifications are written as though the bottom-right cell is the only one that exists.

Two practical notes on using the matrix. Work out the proportion of your deployments that land in each cell before you set quantities, not after. And remember that the cell can change mid-incident: a patient who clots normally at minute one may not at minute forty.

Worked example: three buyer profiles

A manufacturing site with 400 staff and a nine-minute ambulance response. Trained first-aiders, machinery lacerations and crush injuries, patients who are otherwise healthy adults. Almost everything lands top-left. Compressed gauze as working stock, two hemostatic units per cabinet held for the junctional case nobody plans for. A kit built entirely from hemostatic gauze here is spending roughly ten times the necessary amount on consumables that will mostly expire unopened.

A regional EMS service. Mixed presentations, older patients, a meaningful proportion on anticoagulants, transport times from eight minutes to over an hour. This profile straddles the right-hand column often enough that hemostatic gauze belongs in every bag — but compressed gauze still does the volume work, because most bleeding an ambulance crew sees is not the Causey corner.

A security or defence buyer supplying teams operating away from rapid evacuation. Junctional wounds are in scope, care under fire is a real phase, and physiology will have deteriorated by the time anyone can hold pressure. Both studies apply, in sequence. Here the hemostatic line is not an upgrade, it is the baseline, and the compressed gauze is what you pack behind it.

Estimating your own split

You do not need incident data to get close. Three questions get you most of the way: what proportion of your cases are junctional or otherwise untourniquetable, what proportion involve patients likely to be anticoagulated or already in shock, and whether your responders can commit three minutes without abandoning another task.

Any case that answers yes to two of the three belongs in the hemostatic column. In our experience of quoting these programmes, buyers who run that exercise usually land somewhere between 15% and 40% hemostatic rather than the 100% their draft specification assumed.

Round up rather than down. The cost of one unnecessary hemostatic unit is about fifty dollars; the cost of being one short in the corner you did not predict is not measured in dollars. Treat the matrix as a way to size the split, not as permission to run thin. Buyers who get this wrong almost always get it wrong in the same direction, which is worth knowing about yourself before you sign.

One caveat on the cells themselves. They describe the patient in front of the responder, not the incident type. Two casualties from the same event can sit in different cells, and a mass-casualty scenario puts pressure on the one variable — available hands — that the matrix quietly assumes you control.

Z-Fold and S-Rolled Gauze: The Format Question Nobody Answers

Format gets skipped in almost every comparison, including all three of the pages ranking for this term. It matters more than the fold’s reputation suggests, and the question s rolled vs z fold gauze has a real answer.

Z-fold gauze is stacked in an accordion inside the pouch. Pull the leading edge and the whole length feeds out in a continuous ribbon, one-handed, without the roll escaping into the dirt. Every major hemostatic product ships this way, and it is the format TCCC training assumes.

S-rolled gauze is wound onto itself. Feeding it requires either two hands or a clean surface to rest the roll on. In exchange, it packs marginally denser and costs less to manufacture.

For a trauma responder working one-handed in poor light, the fold is worth paying for. For a clinic bench where the roll can sit in a tray, it is not. Compressed gauze is available in both formats, so this is a genuine choice rather than a tier.

Specify the fold explicitly in your purchase order. It is the kind of detail that gets substituted silently when a supplier is short on one and long on the other, and the substitution is invisible until somebody opens a pouch under pressure.

The pouch deserves a line of its own. Vacuum-sealing compresses a 4 yd length into something that fits an ankle kit, and the seal is what carries the sterility claim and the expiry date. Easy-tear notches matter more than they sound: a responder with blood on their gloves and a knife they should not be using near a wound is a predictable failure mode, and the fix costs the manufacturer almost nothing.

One more format decision that gets made by accident. Width is usually 3 inches for packing, but 4-inch stock exists and behaves differently in a narrow tract — more material per pass, harder to feed one-handed. If your end users train on 3-inch, buy 3-inch. Muscle memory built on one width does not transfer cleanly to another under stress, and this is the sort of mismatch that shows up in an after-action report rather than in a receiving inspection.

Length is the other silent variable. A single junctional wound can consume a full 4 yd, and the guidelines allow for a second dressing when the first fails. Stocking shorter rolls means stocking more of them, and the per-unit price stops being comparable. Work out your yards per casualty before you compare two quotations, because a $4.99 roll at 1.3 yd and a $4.99 roll at 4.5 yd are not the same purchase, whatever the line item says.

Hemostatic Gauze Cost Arithmetic, and the Mix Nobody Quotes

US retail listings captured on 30 July 2026 put compressed gauze at around $4.99 a unit. Kaolin hemostatic gauze in the same 3″ × 4 yd size runs roughly $42 to $62 depending on packaging tier.

Call it roughly ten times, and treat both figures as indicative — retail listings drift and bulk pricing is a different conversation.

Now apply the matrix. If your deployment profile puts, say, three quarters of cases in the cells where an active agent contributes nothing measurable, an all-hemostatic kit spends roughly ten times what it needs to on three quarters of its consumables.

The specification that usually wins is a mix: compressed gauze as the working stock for pressure-amenable bleeding, hemostatic gauze reserved for junctional wounds and for the patients whose physiology has already turned. Buyers rarely quote it that way because suppliers rarely offer it that way — most sell one or the other and have no incentive to suggest a blend.

Work it through on a real quantity. A thousand-unit programme built entirely from hemostatic gauze at $50 lands near $50,000. The same programme at a 25/75 split — 250 hemostatic, 750 compressed — comes in around $16,250. The difference is not a discount anyone negotiated. It is the cost of specifying against the matrix instead of against the worst case.

Why does nobody quote it that way? Because a supplier who makes only hemostatic gauze has no reason to suggest you buy less of it, and a supplier who makes only plain gauze cannot cover the corner where plain gauze fails. The mix usually requires two vendors, and neither has an incentive to point you at the other.

We should be explicit about which side of that we sit on. Our product line is hemostatic gauze. We do not manufacture compressed or plain gauze and we will not be quoting you for it. Every paragraph in this article that tells you to buy less hemostatic gauze costs us revenue and earns us nothing — which is the only reason it is worth reading.

There is a second reason, and it is procedural. Tenders are usually written by copying last year’s document, and last year’s document was written by someone who had been sold an all-hemostatic kit. The specification then propagates unexamined through every renewal. If you are the buyer, the cheapest thing you will do all year is reread the line that sets the quantity split and ask where the number came from.

Two costs that never make it into the comparison. Expiry write-off, which lands disproportionately on the expensive line because it is the one that sits unused; and training consumption, which lands on the cheap line and should be budgeted separately from deployable stock rather than drawn from it. Programmes that skip that separation end up training with deployable stock and discovering the shortfall during an incident.

Two things to hold constant across both lines. Shelf life on arrival: a five-year product with eighteen months left is not a bargain, and the ask belongs in the purchase order rather than in an email. And sterility: cheap plain gauze is where the real risk lives in this category, and it is not a bleeding risk. A pouch that has lost its seal has lost its sterility claim regardless of the printed date. Train receiving staff to reject soft packs.

When You Do Not Need Hemostatic Gauze

If your end users are trained, if they are treating compressible bleeding in patients whose physiology is intact, and if somebody can hold pressure for three minutes — compressed gauze is sufficient and costs about a tenth as much. Buy that instead. Put the difference into training and tourniquets, both of which will save more lives per dollar than upgrading your packing material.

That is the honest reading of Watters 2011, and we would rather you heard it from the people who make the expensive option.

Two boundaries on that advice, because a one-sided version of it is dangerous.

The first is that “trained” is doing real work in that sentence. VITAC’s guide has a section arguing that packing technique determines the outcome, and the evidence supports them. Untrained packing fails with any material. If you cannot invest in training, the dressing that shortens clotting time partially compensates for technique you do not have — which is a legitimate reason to buy up.

The second comes from the field rather than the literature. A thread on r/TacticalMedicine is titled, flatly, “Compressed gauze was NOT helpful in emergency.” Anecdote is not data, and we are not presenting it as such. But it is the correct counterweight to a section like this one. The corner where plain gauze fails is not rare and it is not predictable from the outside, and a buyer who reads “compressed gauze is sufficient” as “hemostatic gauze is a scam” has drawn the wrong conclusion from an article that spent two studies explaining why the answer depends on conditions.

Stock for the corner you cannot rule out. Just do not stock the whole kit for it.

What we do not claim

We manufacture kaolin hemostatic gauze, so read the following as boundaries we are volunteering:

• Neither study cited here tested our product. They tested QuikClot Combat Gauze and Celox against standard gauze. We cite them as category evidence, not as evidence about us.
• We hold no CoTCCC listing and no national stock number. Where a specification names either, buy the branded product.
• Our quality system is certified to ISO 13485 (UL/UKAS certificate 172692.240327). That is a manufacturing quality certification, not a product approval.
• Our sterilisation is by irradiation to ISO 11137 with dosimetric release. No ethylene oxide is used, so there is no EO residual to test.
• We manufacture hemostatic gauze only. We do not produce compressed or plain gauze, so we have no line to sell you on the cheaper side of this comparison and no reason to be generous about it other than the evidence.
• QuikClot, Combat Gauze and Celox are registered trademarks of their respective owners, referenced here to identify the products the cited studies used.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is hemostatic gauze better than regular gauze?

Not universally, and the honest answer is conditional. Under sustained pressure in a patient who has lost the ability to clot, yes, clearly — plain gauze failed every first application in the Causey model. Without sustained pressure in a physiologically normal patient, no measurable advantage was found, and plain gauze actually posted the higher success rate in the Watters model. Comparisons framed as combat gauze vs regular gauze without stating the conditions are not answerable.

Can I just use more plain gauze instead?

Volume is not the limiting factor, technique and physiology are. Packing more material into a cavity without maintaining pressure on the bleeding source does not improve tamponade, and a wound has finite capacity. Where the patient can still clot, one well-packed compressed roll outperforms three badly packed ones.

Does compressed gauze expire?

The cotton does not degrade meaningfully, but the sterile barrier does, and the expiry is tied to the pouch. The practical issue in bulk purchasing is remaining shelf life on delivery rather than the printed date itself. Specify a minimum.

Do I still need hemostatic gauze if I carry a tourniquet?

They address different wounds. A tourniquet is first-line for compressible extremity bleeding and works faster than any dressing. Neither reaches junctional bleeding at the groin, axilla or neck, which is where packing is the only option and where hemostatic gauze earns its price. Stocking one instead of the other is not a saving.

Is hemostatic gauze overkill for minor cuts?

Yes, and no responsible supplier will tell you otherwise. Minor cuts and scrapes stop with direct pressure and an adhesive dressing. Hemostatic gauze is a life-threatening-haemorrhage product; using it on a laceration wastes a $50 consumable and teaches the wrong reflex.

Does hemostatic gauze work on a patient taking blood thinners?

Kaolin accelerates the patient’s own clotting cascade, so a significantly anticoagulated patient gives it less to work with. Chitosan dressings such as Celox form an adhesive gel largely independent of the cascade, which is why they are often preferred in that situation — with the caveat that chitosan is crustacean-derived and a shellfish allergy should be checked where the history is available. Neither is a substitute for pressure.

What is the difference between wound packing gauze and compressed gauze?

Mostly the label. Most wound packing gauze sold for trauma use is compressed gauze; the first name describes the intended use and the second describes the manufacturing process. Check the length, the fold and whether it carries an active agent — those three lines tell you what you are buying, and the product name does not.

Related Articles

1. Kaolin Hemostatic Gauze for Export Buyers, the procurement side — MOQ, lead time, wholesale tiers and certification status. Read it once you know what mix you need
2. Combat Gauze vs QuikClot: Five Versions of the Same Kaolin Gauze, if you have decided you need the hemostatic line and now need to work out which packaging tier your paperwork requires
3. Kaolin Z-Folded Hemostatic Gauze, our own Z-fold specification, widths and irradiation records
4. What Is TCCC?, the framework behind the MARCH sequence and the three-minute pressure rule quoted throughout this article. Start here if the terminology above was unfamiliar, or if you are writing a specification and need the underlying framework in your own words

Sizing the hemostatic gauze half of your programme?

Work out your split first using the matrix above. Then tell us the hemostatic quantity you actually need, your format (Z-fold or S-rolled), width and length, and the minimum remaining shelf life your buyers will accept. You will get a specification sheet, our irradiation and dosimetric release records, and a quotation against that volume. The compressed gauze you will need to source separately — we do not make it.

Request a Specification Sheet & Quotation →

About This Guide

Written by the technical team at Rusun Tacmed, a Chinese manufacturer of kaolin hemostatic gauze and TCCC-category trauma products, ISO 13485 certified (UL/UKAS 172692.240327). We manufacture the more expensive of the two products discussed here, which is a commercial interest readers should weigh — and the reason the section on when not to buy it is placed before the section on cost. Study figures are quoted from the published abstracts, both of which are linked below. Prices are US retailer listings captured on 30 July 2026 and will drift.

This article supports procurement decisions. It is not clinical guidance and it is not a substitute for TCCC or Stop the Bleed training.

References & Sources

1. Watters JM, Van PY, Hamilton GJ, Sambasivan C, Differding JA, Schreiber MA. Advanced hemostatic dressings are not superior to gauze for care under fire scenarios. J Trauma. 2011;70(6):1413-9
2. Causey MW, McVay DP, Miller S, Beekley A, Martin M. The efficacy of Combat Gauze in extreme physiologic conditions. J Surg Res. 2012;177(2):301-305
3. Tactical Combat Casualty Care Guidelines, 1 May 2026 — Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care
4. ISO 11137, sterilization of health care products by radiation
5. ISO 13485, medical device quality management systems