ReviewDer Anaesthesist2006
[Public access defibrillation. Limited use by trained first responders and laymen].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Saving lives with dispatcher-assisted resuscitation: importance of effective telephone instruction].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Trial
- Survival after application of automatic external defibrillators before arrival of the emergency medical system: evaluation in the resuscitation outcomes consortium population of 21 million.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As ventricular fibrillation is the most frequent initial heart rhythm causing out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, defibrillation is of essential significance. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have been available for some years and as a result defibrillation can be carried out by individuals other than physicians and healthcare providers such as trained first responders and untrained lay rescuers. This so-called public access defibrillation nourished hope of progress in the treatment of sudden cardiac arrest. However, several limitations exist, such as low frequency of sudden cardiac arrest in public, rare use of publicly placed AEDs, low cost effectiveness, legal requirements and insufficient public willingness to help. Due to these restrictions of public access defibrillation other measures are more promising than the attempt at general distribution of AEDs. These measures are primary or secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac arrest, general knowledge of adequate activation of emergency medical services, implementation of first responder teams equipped with AEDs and particularly a better education in and application of the well-established principles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17021885What 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.