ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2014
Accuracy of prehospital transport time estimation.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rural Emergency 360°: A mixed-methods analysis of barriers and priorities for equitable emergency care in Québec.PloS one · 2026Article
- Effect of urgency level on prehospital emergency transport times: a natural experiment.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Traffic Patterns and Emergency Medical Services Prenotification Transport Estimates in Trauma Activations.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2024Article
- Clinical Research in Prehospital Care: Current and Future Challenges.Clinics and practice · 2023Review
- Going to the nearest hospital vs. designated trauma centre for road traffic crashes: estimating the time difference in Delhi, India.International journal of injury control and safety promotion · 2019Article
- Article
- Accuracy of Perceived Estimated Travel Time by EMS to a Trauma Center in San Bernardino County, California.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2016Article
- Area Median Income and Metropolitan Versus Nonmetropolitan Location of Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Complex Interaction of Social Determinants.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2016Article
- Regionalized Critical Care May Be Feasible, But Will It Improve Outcomes?Critical care medicine · 2015Article
- County-Level Effects of Prehospital Regionalization of Critically Ill Patients: A Simulation Study.Critical care medicine · 2015Article
- Sex, socioeconomic status, access to cardiac catheterization, and outcomes for acute coronary syndromes in the context of universal healthcare coverage.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2014Article
- Geographic access to high capability severe acute respiratory failure centers in the United States.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEstimates of prehospital transport times are an important part of emergency care system research and planning; however, the accuracy of these estimates is unknown. The authors examined the accuracy of three estimation methods against observed transport times in a large cohort of prehospital patient transports.
methodsThis was a validation study using prehospital records in King County, Washington, and southwestern Pennsylvania from 2002 to 2006 and 2005 to 2011, respectively. Transport time estimates were generated using three methods: linear arc distance, Google Maps, and ArcGIS Network Analyst. Estimation error, defined as the absolute difference between observed and estimated transport time, was assessed, as well as the proportion of estimated times that were within specified error thresholds. Based on the primary results, a regression estimate was used that incorporated population density, time of day, and season to assess improved accuracy. Finally, hospital catchment areas were compared using each method with a fixed drive time.
resultsThe authors analyzed 29,935 prehospital transports to 44 hospitals. The mean (± standard deviation [±SD]) absolute error was 4.8 (±7.3) minutes using linear arc, 3.5 (±5.4) minutes using Google Maps, and 4.4 (±5.7) minutes using ArcGIS. All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Estimation accuracy was lower for each method among transports more than 20 minutes (mean [±SD] absolute error was 12.7 [±11.7] minutes for linear arc, 9.8 [±10.5] minutes for Google Maps, and 11.6 [±10.9] minutes for ArcGIS). Estimates were within 5 minutes of observed transport time for 79% of linear arc estimates, 86.6% of Google Maps estimates, and 81.3% of ArcGIS estimates. The regression-based approach did not substantially improve estimation. There were large differences in hospital catchment areas estimated by each method.
conclusionsRoute-based transport time estimates demonstrate moderate accuracy. These methods can be valuable for informing a host of decisions related to the system organization and patient access to emergency medical care; however, they should be employed with sensitivity to their limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.