Observational studyThe Medical journal of Australia2025
Smartphone-activated volunteer responders and survival to discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Victoria, 2018-23: an observational cohort study.
Observational study in The Medical journal of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of public access defibrillation on outcomes for children experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a 25-year retrospective study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- What is the effect of volunteer community responders network on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes in the swiss canton of fribourg? a five-year retrospective observational study.Resuscitation plus · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the likelihood of patient survival to discharge and of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation for cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in which at least one smartphone-activated volunteer responder (SAVR) arrived before emergency medical services (EMS) with cases in which EMS arrived first. STUDY
designPopulation-based observational cohort study; analysis of Victorian Ambulance Cardiac Arrest Registry (VACAR) data.
settingVictoria, 12 February 2018 - 31 August 2023.
participantsAll cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest not witnessed by EMS personnel, except events in residential aged care facilities, in which EMS personnel did not attempt resuscitation, or for which the EMS dispatch code was ineligible for SAVR activation; events during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic lockdowns were also excluded (SAVR program pause: rural areas: 23 March 2020 - 16 October 2020; metropolitan areas: 23 March 2020 - 9 November 2020).
main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: survival to hospital discharge. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: bystander CPR, bystander defibrillation, any return of spontaneous circulation.
resultsOf 9196 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest included in our analysis, 1158 (12.6%) had been attended by SAVRs: before EMS arrival in 564 cases (48.7%) and after EMS arrival in 594 cases (51.3%). The risk-adjusted odds of patient survival to hospital discharge were higher for events in which SAVRs arrived before EMS than for those not attended by SAVRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.85), as were those of bystander CPR (aOR, 7.59; 95% CI, 4.97-11.6) and bystander defibrillation (aOR, 16.0; 95% CI, 9.23-27.7); the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation was similar for the two event groups. SAVRs arriving after EMS did not influence any of the assessed outcomes.
conclusionThe arrival of SAVRs before EMS personnel was associated with greater likelihood of patient survival to hospital discharge and of bystander CPR and defibrillation.
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.