ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Bystander placement of automated external defibrillators and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: a propensity score-matched cohort study between 2021 and 2022.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) placement is expected to benefit all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases, even in the absence of prehospital defibrillation. This study investigated the factors influencing bystander-AED placement and evaluated its impact on neurologically favourable outcomes in bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCA cases receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This retrospective cohort study analysed nationwide EMS-transported emergency and OHCA databases (2021-2022), including 22,443 bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCAs with bystander CPR, of which 10,324 involved bystander-AED placement. AEDs were placed by bystanders in 25,333 (10.6%) of 238,871 non-EMS-witnessed OHCA cases. Logistic regression showed the associations of prehospital defibrillation, no bystander CPR, male sex, outdoor location, at-home setting, and family- or friend/colleague-witnessed OHCA with lower bystander-AED placement rates. In contrast, rural municipality EMS, daytime, DA-CPR attempt, presumed cardiac aetiology, shockable initial rhythm, conventional bystander CPR, and care/medical facilities were associated with higher rates. Neurologically favourable survival was 2.2% for bystander-AED and 2.3% for EMS-AED placement cases within care/medical facilities, compared to 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively, outside these facilities. In both logistic regression analyses after propensity score matching, bystander-AED placement improved outcomes of OHCA outside care/medical facilities only in the presence of prehospital defibrillation (adjusted odds ratio 1.24 [1.04-1.48]) but worsened outcomes of OHCA within the facilities in the absence of prehospital defibrillation (0.73 [0.54-0.99]). Bystander-AED placement was common in care/medical facilities but had limited benefits. The effectiveness of bystander-AED placement depends on location, early prehospital defibrillation, and responder training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40488924What 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.