ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Spatiotemporal disparities in automated external defibrillator access: identifying national deficits.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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.
- Optimizing automated external defibrillator incremental deployment to improve out-of-hospital cardiac arrest coverage: a spatial optimization study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Barriers and enablers to public access defibrillation - an international RAND-UCLA consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Public-Access Defibrillation and System Approaches to Minimize Avoidable Delay.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Underuse of bystander defibrillation on females during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective observational study in Aotearoa New Zealand.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Timely defibrillation is vital for survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet the availability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at critical moments remains uncertain. Placement guidelines emphasize high-traffic public sites, but most OHCAs occur at home and outside business hours, raising questions about accessibility. Few national studies address both geography and temporal availability. Switzerland's decentralized system without placement standards provides a critical test case. This study applies a spatial-statistical framework to analyze clustering, assess links between AED presence and population or employment density, and quantify accessibility deficits and affected populations. Methods: We analyzed over 14,000 devices from the Swiss AED registry under two scenarios: those with 24-h access and all devices hypothetically available 24/7. Clustering was tested with Ripley's L and Moran's I. Associations with population or employment density were estimated using Bayesian spatial logistic models (BYM2), separating demographic effects from residual spatial structure. Accessibility deficits were defined as the gap between modeled and observed AED presence, weighted by demographic counts, and expressed as population-weighted risk scores. Results: AEDs were significantly spatially clustered, with deployment more strongly aligned with employment than with residential population. Strong residual spatial structuring persisted beyond demographic effects. The 5 % of grid cells with the highest accessibility deficits contained between 16 % and 42 % of the national population or workforce. Conclusion: AED deployment in Switzerland reflects historical and institutional patterns rather than risk-based planning. This study provides a framework for identifying spatial and temporal accessibility deficits and guiding more equitable AED placement.
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.