ArticleScientific reports2022
Trends in maintenance status and usability of public automated external defibrillators during a 5-year on-site inspection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 2. Current status of cardiac arrest and the chain of survival.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- Leveraging primary healthcare institutions for the deployment of automated external defibrillators: a geospatial optimization analysis in Deyang, China.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Optimising the emergency-readiness of public access defibrillators across Wales using quality improvement methodology.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Sudden cardiac arrest in young adults: A comprehensive systematic review of epidemiology, aetiology and preventive strategies.Heart international · 2026Review
- Cardiac Arrest: Can Technology Be the Solution?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests Occurring in Public Places: A National Population-Based Observational Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- The future of resuscitation.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Establishing a National Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Program in Indian High schools and colleges: An expert collaborative call to action and implementation model.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the trend of the maintenance status and usability of public automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Public AEDs installed in Seoul from 2013 to 2017 were included. An inspector checked the maintenance status and usability of the AEDs annually using a checklist. During the study period, 23,619 AEDs were inspected. Access to the AEDs was improved, including the absence of obstacles near the AEDs (from 90.2% in 2013 to 99.1% in 2017, p < 0.0001) and increased AED signs (from 34.3% in 2013 to 91.3% in 2017, p < 0.0001). The rate of AEDs in normal operation (from 94.0% in 2013 to 97.6% in 2017, p < 0.0001), good battery status (from 95.6% in 2013 to 96.8% in 2017, p = 0.0016), and electrode availability increased (from 97.1% in 2013 to 99.0% in 2017, p < 0.0001); the rate of electrode validity decreased (from 90.0% in 2013 to 87.2% in 2017, p < 0.0001). The overall rate of the non-ready-to-use AEDs and AEDs with less than 24-h usability accounted for 15.4% and 44.1% of the total number of AEDs, respectively. Although most AEDs had a relatively good maintenance status, a significant proportion of public AEDs were not available for 24-h use. Invalid electrodes and less than 24-h accessibility were the main reasons that limited the 24-h usability of public AEDs.
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.