ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2024
Use of bitemporal NACA score documentation in prehospital emergency medical services- a retrospective study.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology and severity of mountain rescue missions in Poland: a retrospective study of 9,477 patients rescued by the Tatra Mountain Rescue Service.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of prehospital traumatic cardiac arrest in Geneva: a retrospective cohort study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Major medical events in patients with acute coronary syndrome during helicopter emergency medical service operations.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of illness severity in the prehospital setting is essential for guiding appropriate medical interventions. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) score is a validated tool commonly used for this purpose. However, the potential benefits of using bitemporal documentation of NACA scores to capture the dynamic changes in emergency situations remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential benefit of bitemporal NACA score documentation in the prehospital setting, specifically in assessing the dynamic changes of emergencies and facilitating quality improvement through enhanced documentation practices.
methodsIn this retrospective study, data from prehospital emergency patients were analyzed who received care from the physician response unit between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2021. Patient demographics, NACA scores, indications for emergency care, and changes in NACA scores were extracted from medical records. Statistical analyses were performed to examine the associations between NACA scores, emergency categories, indications, and changes in NACA scores.
resultsThe study included 4005 patients, predominantly categorized as NACA III (33.7% at initial assessment, 41.8% at subsequent assessment) and NACA IV (31.6% at initial assessment, 22.4% at subsequent assessment). There was a significant improvement in NACA scores during the provision of prehospital care (p < 0.01). Notably, prehospital emergencies attributed to internal medical, neurological, traumatic, and paediatric causes demonstrated significant improvements in NACA scores (p < 0.01). Gender-specific differences were also observed.
conclusionOur study suggests that the bitemporal documentation of NACA scores can be advantageous in the prehospital setting and may have implications for research, practice, and policy.
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.