ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2005
[Automated external defibrillators: perspectives and outlook].
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Germany about 80.000 patients die of sudden cardiac death each year with enormous human, social and economic consequences. Most cases of sudden cardiac death are caused by ischemia-triggered ventricular fibrillation. A precondition for survival of the victims is an optimally and fast reacting "chain of survival". One of the central links of this chain is timely defibrillation, which is the only effective therapy for treatment of ventricular fibrillation. Automated external defibrillators proved to be a major step forward in improvement of resuscitation results. It has been convincingly demonstrated, that these devices not only are safe and efficacious in the hands of rescue personnel of different qualification degrees but also in the hands of minimally trained "first responders" and even in the hands of untrained lay people. This story of success was paralleled by the development of a new generation of biphasic defibrillators, which have a superior efficacy, are lightweight and are even cheaper than conventional devices. It must however kept in mind, that progress offered by these new opportunities will only translate in better resuscitation results, when programmes are thoroughly planned, will stay under continuous quality control with regard to performance of devices and rescuers and if new knowledge in resuscitation is adequately incorporated in action protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15997358What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.