ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Effectiveness of ultraportable automated external defibrillators: A scoping review.
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 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.
- Representation of female and male pictorial instructions on automated external defibrillators, pad packages, and defibrillation pads.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Barriers and enablers to public access defibrillation - an international RAND-UCLA consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Drone-delivered automated external defibrillators in prehospital emergency care: implementation evidence, bottlenecks, and conceptual integration with artificial intelligence and next-generation communications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ultraportable automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are a new generation of defibrillators that are small, lightweight, easy to carry on one's person, and affordable for personal and home use. They offer the opportunity to increase AED availability in case of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and therefore improve outcomes.We aimed to review evidence supporting the potential effect on outcomes and the performance of these ultraportable AEDs. Methods: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from 2012 to July 4th, 2024 to identify any studies related to ultraportable AED. The population was adult and children with OHCA who were treated with an ultra-portable AED. All outcomes were accepted. We limited study designs to randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies. Data charting was done by the primary author using standardized data abstraction forms. Results: The search strategy identified 54 studies (Pubmed = 26, Embase = 28, with 19 duplicates). We included three articles in the final review. One study was a medico-economic simulation study including 600,000 simulated patients, one is the study protocol of cluster randomized trial of providing ultraportable AEDs to first responders and one is an abstract with preliminary results of this trial reporting 1805 community responders recruited, 903 allocated to ultraportable AED. No studies to date have reported patient outcomes. Conclusion: This review found no evidence of ultraportable AED device performance, clinical or safety outcomes. There is an urgent need for further research to determine the safety and effectiveness of ultraportable 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.