ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2025
Oral anticoagulant use by emergency medical services patients: an observational study.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOral anticoagulant (OAC) use increases the risk of death in conditions like hemorrhagic stroke, trauma, and traumatic brain injury. Early identification of OAC use is critical for timely interventions to mitigate hemorrhage risk and improve survival. We aimed to identify emergency medical services (EMS) care characteristics associated with patients using an OAC.
methodsWe analyzed prehospital data (2018-2020) from the ESO Data Collaborative, focusing on adult (≥18 years) 911 EMS calls. The administered OACs were warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. We compared EMS call characteristics, patient demographics, response times, and interventions between OAC and non-OAC users. We used univariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors of OAC use.
resultsOf 16,244,550 adult 911 EMS events, 906,575 involved OAC users (56 of 1,000 calls). Those using OAC were older (73.6 years vs. 56.9 years) and more often from nursing homes or long-term care facilities (17.0% vs. 9.2%) but less likely to have trauma (14.7% vs. 18.1%) or cardiac arrest (1.2% vs. 1.4%). The most common EMS primary clinical impressions for OAC users were chest pain (7.4%), altered mental status (7.3%), injury (6.5%), abdominal pain (4.3%), and brain injury (2.8%).
conclusionOAC users accounted for 1 in 18 adult EMS encounters. Specific patient and call characteristics were associated with OAC use. These findings should be incorporated into EMS training to facilitate recognition and appropriate management of OAC-related emergencies.
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.