SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Survival and cost-effectiveness of helicopter versus ground emergency medical services: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Helicopter emergency medical services for interfacility transfers: an Italian expert consensus.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Helicopter versus GROUND emergency medical services in mountainous trauma care: a comparative cohort study on time efficiency, golden hour achievement, and clinical outcomes in the Qinba region.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Nationwide characteristics of infectious disease patients transported by helicopter ambulance in Türkiye.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Helicopter emergency medical services for elderly patients: clinical outcomes and disease patterns.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo synthesise the available literature comparing outcomes of ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from 1995 to 2024. Studies comparing HEMS with GEMS in emergency conditions were eligible.
resultsThe search retrieved 1,595 records; 181 studies were assessed in full text, and 77 were included, accounting for a pooled population of 2,618,483 patients. The relative risk (RR) of mortality in HEMS compared with GEMS was 1.13 (95% CI 0.96-1.34). The RR of disability was 1.24 (95% CI 0.99-1.55). The total incremental net benefit was €980,000 per QALY per patient, based on cost-effectiveness studies and a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35 million per QALY per patient.
conclusionVery low-quality evidence, due to high heterogeneity, potential confounding from registry-based enrolment, and possible multiple imputation bias, suggested that HEMS did not improve survival compared with GEMS. High-quality studies are needed to further investigate this question. CLINICAL
trial registrationPROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024628317.
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.