ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Prehospital respiratory interventions during six waves of COVID-19: results from Israel's Emergency Medical Services system.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite COVID-19 having been the subject of extensive scientific research, there is a paucity of studies on the respiratory management needs of patients in the pre-hospital setting. This retrospective cohort study utilizes data from Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to investigate how prehospital respiratory management needs changed throughout the first six waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel.
methodsAll EMS responses due to respiratory complaints, from March 21, 2020, to July 31, 2022, were included. Odds ratios (ORs) for each wave were calculated for each intervention with the previous wave as reference. Wave 1 (W1) was compared to a pre-pandemic period.
resultsThe study included 141,027 responses. Throughout the pandemic, no endotracheal intubations were performed. The use of mask-based 90% FiO
conclusionsMDA advised staff not to perform endotracheal intubations during the pandemic due to concerns of transmission through aerosol. Similarly, the initial drops in high-concentration O2 and nebulized bronchodilators may be due to concerns with its aerosolizing potential. The gradual replacement of high-concentration prehospital oxygen by mask with nasal cannulas over the pandemic waves may be due to the decreased pathogenicity of the new strains and expanded vaccination coverage. The increased use of nebulized bronchodilators seen during the latter waves may be due to the re-emergence of non-covid pathogens with greater bronchoconstrictive effect as social restrictions were eased. Further, as vaccine coverage expanded among providers over time, these may have been more comfortable administering bronchodilators.
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.