ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2022
Effects of COVID-19 lockdown strategies on emergency medical services.
Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nationwide analysis of emergency medical services' responses during six waves of COVID-19.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Patterns of emergency dispatch calls and their changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Changes of public behavior alter weather-dependent strain on emergency medical services.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Prehospital Emergency Service Use for Substance-Related Issues before and during COVID-19.Emergency medicine international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study is to evaluate the change in the number of EMS cases by comparing the lockdown period, the non-lockdown period, and the pre-pandemic period.
methodsIn our study, 3 periods of EMS cases were compared to evaluate the effect of lockdown. The first period (Period A) included in the study was the lockdown period (01-12-2020 and 31-01-2021. The second period (period B) is the period between 01 and 10-2020 and 30-11-2020, where there was no lockdown despite the pandemic. The third period (period C) in the study is the period between 01 and 12-2019 and 31-01-2020 before the pandemic.
resultsA total of 120,989 cases in 3 periods were included in the study. It was determined that the highest number of patients were in period C (42,703, 35.3%), while the least was in period A (39,054, 32.2%). On the other hand, it was found that the number of calls was highest in period A (246,200, 35.1%), while the least was in period C (212,267, 30.2%). Response times were longer in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic period. Mean talk time were longer during the pandemic period. The most frequent diagnosis in period A (21.6%) and B (42.2%) was COVID-19. The second most frequent disease group in these two periods was cardiovascular diseases.
conclusionWhile the number of EMS cases decreased during the pandemic period, it decreased even more during the lockdown period. However, the number of calls increased significantly during the lockdown period, and the response times and talk times increased accordingly.
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.