ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Bystander interaction with a novel multipurpose medical drone: A simulation trial.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drones delivering automated external defibrillators for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Intro: Medical drones are an emerging technology which may facilitate rapid treatment in time-sensitive emergencies. However, drones rely on lay rescuers, whose interactions with multipurpose medical drones have not been studied, and the optimal drone design remains unclear. Methods: We conducted 24 simulations of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and pediatric anaphylaxis with a prototype drone equipped with spoken and visual cues and a multipurpose medical kit. 24 layperson volunteers encountered one of the two scenarios and were supported through administering treatment by a simulated 911 dispatcher. Bystander-drone interactions were evaluated via a convergent parallel mixed methods approach using surveys, video event review, and semi-structured interviews. Results: 83% (20/24) of participants voiced comfort interacting with the drone. 96% (23/24) were interested in future interaction. Participants appreciated the drone's spoken instructions but found visual cues confusing. Participants retrieved the medical kit from the drone in a mean of 5 seconds (range 2-14) of drone contact; 79% (19/24) found this step easy or very easy. The medical kit's layered design caused difficulty in retrieving appropriate equipment. Participants expressed a wide range of reactions to the unique drone design. Conclusions: Laypeople can effectively and comfortably interact with a medical drone with a novel design. Feedback on design elements will result in further refinements and valuable insights for other drone designers. A multipurpose medical kit created more challenges and indicates the need for further refinement to facilitate use of the equipment.
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.