ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2022
Public Access Defibrillators and Socioeconomic Factors on the Small—Scale Spatial Level in Berlin—a Cross-Sectional Analysis
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Access to automated external defibrillators and first responders: Associations with socioeconomic factors and income inequality at small spatial scales.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Automated external defibrillator location and socioeconomic deprivation in Great Britain.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2024Observational
- Association of Socioeconomic Status With Long-Term Outcome in Survivors After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Nationwide Population-Based Longitudinal Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Successful treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is still based on quick activation of the chain of survival.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- [AED drones on the rise? : Use of drones to improve public access defibrillation].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of a public access defibrillator (PAD) increases the probability of surviving an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). No strategies exist, however, for the optimal distribution of PADs in an urban area in order to meet existing needs and ensure equal access for all potential users. It thus seems likely that the accessibility of PADs on the spatial level varies widely as a function of living circumstances.
methodsThis cross-sectional study is based on registry data concerning PAD (2022, n = 776) and OHCA (2018-2020, n = 4051), along with data on socioeconomic factors on the spatial level in Berlin (12 districts and 137 subdistricts). Associations of socioeconomic factors with the number of PADs per 10 000 inhabitants and the PAD coverage rate of sites of previous OHCAs were investigated.
resultsThe median number of PADs per 10 000 inhabitants ranged from 0.46 to 2.67 at the district level, and only five districts had a median PAD coverage rate of sites of previous OHCAs above 0%, after aggregation of the analyses at the subdistrict level. Subdistricts with a more favorable economic status and a greater income disparity had a higher PAD density. Socially disadvantaged subdistricts had no association with PAD density.
conclusionThere are large deficits in the distribution of PADs at the small-scale spatial level in Berlin with respect to the goals of meeting existing needs and ensuring equal access for all potential users. The findings presented here will be of importance for the planning of future PAD programs so that the distributional efficiency and fairness of PAD in urban areas can be improved.
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.