ReviewInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Frequent callers vs. frequent users - a scoping review of frequent contacts to the emergency medical services.
Review in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frequent users of the ambulance service in a Swedish region: a retrospective cohort study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Demographic and clinical characteristics of frequent users of emergency medical services in Türkiye.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Disparities between two possible thresholds for frequent contacts to a Norwegian emergency medical communication centre: ≥5 contacts in one month vs. ≥12 contacts in three months.BMC emergency medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA significant limitation in the literature on frequent callers and frequent users of prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is the lack of consistent and thus, comparable definitions, as well as inconsistent use of terminology. Here we aim to summarise and address discrepancies in the existing literature, contributing to the ongoing discussion.
methodWe conducted a systematic search of available literature from 2000 up until February 2024 in the PubMed database. Search terms related to both frequent callers and frequent users of the prehospital EMS.
resultA total of 19 articles were included in our analysis of definitions of frequent callers and users of prehospital EMS. The average minimum number of calls required to be defined as a frequent caller was 42.5 calls per year (range: 4-120). For frequent users, an average minimum number of ambulance responses was 4.7 per year (range: 3-10).
conclusionOur findings emphasise both the possibility and the need to distinguish between frequent users and frequent callers of prehospital EMS. Existing definitions in the literature vary widely, making comparisons difficult. Standardised definitions and consistent terminology are essential to address underlying issues and enable further research synthesis.
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.