ArticlePloS one2024
Ambulance quality and outcome measures for general non-conveyed populations (AQUA): A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- "I just needed help": a qualitative study of patients' experiences with a single responder ambulance.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- An analysis of characteristics and associated factors for re-contacts after EMS non-conveyance: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- An analysis of ambulance re-contacts after non-conveyance: a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundAn increasing number of patients receive ambulance care without being conveyed to a definitive care provider. This process has been described as complex, challenging, and lacking in guideline support by EMS clinicians. The use of quality- and outcome measures among non-conveyed patients is an understudied phenomenon.
aimTo identify current quality- and outcome measures for the general population of non-conveyed patients in order to describe major trends and knowledge gaps.
methodsA scoping review of peer-reviewed original articles was conducted to identify quality- and outcome measures for non-conveyance within emergency medical services. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement (PRISMA-ScR) was followed. The PROSPERO and OSF database were checked for pending reviews or protocols. PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database were searched for relevant articles. Searches were performed in November 2023.
resultsThirty-six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Mortality was the most used outcome measure, reported in 24 (67%) of the articles. Emergency department attendance and hospital admission were the following most used outcome measures. Follow-up durations varied substantially between both measures and studies. Mortality rates were found to have the longest follow-up times, with a median follow-up duration a little bit over one week.
conclusionsThis scoping review shows that studies report a wide range of quality and outcome measures in the ambulance setting to measure non-conveyance. Reported quality and outcome measures were also heterogeneous with regard to their follow-up timeframe. The variety of approaches to evaluate non-conveyance poses challenges for future research and quality improvement. A more uniform approach to reporting and measuring non-conveyance is needed to enable comparisons between contexts and formal meta-analysis.
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.