ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Incidence and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest at Train Stations in Denmark.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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.
- Characteristics of sudden cardiac arrest during endurance racing: a decade of the Paris registry.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
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
backgroundFollowing international guidelines, communities have deployed automated external defibrillators at train stations without substantive evidence. METHODS AND
resultsWe geocoded public out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) (2016-2020), automated external defibrillators, and train stations. The stations were divided into the following groups according to passenger flow: 1 (0-499), 2 (500-4999), 3 (5000-9999), and 4 (>10 000) passengers per day. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using Poisson regression of rates, and odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed through logistic regression. OHCAs at train stations accounted for 102 (2.3%) of 4467 public OHCAs. The incidence rate (IR) and RR for OHCAs were for group 1: IR, 0.02 OHCA per station per year, RR, 1.0 (reference); group 2: IR, 0.07, RR, 4.1 (95% CI, 2.3-7.3); group 3: IR, 0.25, RR, 12.7 (95% CI, 6.2-25.9); and group 4: IR, 0.34, RR, 16.3 (95% CI, 8.6-30.9). Compared with other public OHCAs, OHCAs at train stations were just as likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.60-2.12]). However, they had higher odds of bystander defibrillation (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.58]), were more likely to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.24-2.85]), and survive 30 days (OR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.57-3.59]).
conclusionsThe incidence of OHCAs at train stations was associated with passenger flow, with the busiest stations having a 16-fold higher risk of OHCAs than the lowest. OHCAs at train stations had better outcomes compared with other public OHCAs.
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.