ArticleResuscitation2017
Modeling a novel hypothetical use of postal collection boxes as automated external defibrillator access points.
Article in Resuscitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and enablers to public access defibrillation - an international RAND-UCLA consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Strategic PAD positioning: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing automated external defibrillator deployment within the walking golden window for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases: a case study from a Chinese city.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Regional variation in accessibility of automated external defibrillators in British Columbia.CJEM · 2024Article
- Optimal deployment of automated external defibrillators in a long and narrow environment.PloS one · 2023Article
- Simulating Public Buses as a Mobile Platform for Deployment of Publicly Accessible Automated External Defibrillators.Prehospital emergency careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOptimizing placement of Automated External Defibrillators (AED) can increase survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Using postal collection boxes (PCB) as locations for AEDs could potentially enhance accessibility and streamline maintenance. In this study, we modeled the hypothetical effects of deploying AEDs at PCB locations. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that PCB-AEDs would increase AED coverage overall and in residential areas, and reduce the distance from OHCA to an AED.
methodsAEDs in Pittsburgh, PA were identified by the University of Pittsburgh Resuscitation Logistics and Informatics Venture (n=747). PCB locations were obtained from the United States Postal Service (n=479). OHCA locations from 2009 to 2014 were obtained from the Pittsburgh site of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. AED coverage assuming a ¼ mile radius around each AED was estimated for known AEDs, PCB-AEDs (hypothetical AED locations), and known AEDs augmented by PCB-AEDs, both overall and for residential and non-residential zones. Linear distance from each OHCA to the nearest AED was calculated and compared between the sets.
resultsThe set of known AEDs augmented with PCB-AEDs covered more of the city overall (55% vs 30%), as well as greater proportions of residential (62% vs 27%) and non-residential areas (45% vs 30%). The median distance from OHCA to AED was significantly shorter when known AEDs were augmented with PCB-AEDs (0.12mi vs 0.32mi; p=0.001).
conclusionAugmenting existing publicly accessible AEDs with AEDs deployed at PCBs can increase AED spatial coverage in both residential and non-residential areas, and reduce the distance from AED to OHCA.
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.