Observational studyWiener klinische Wochenschrift2026
Differences in call profiles, interventions and physician staffing between ground and helicopter emergency medical services in Austria : A sub-analysis of the Austrian Emergency Day 2024 audit.
Observational study in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency physician attended calls that could have been covered by advanced emergency medical technicians in Austria : Results of the Austrian Emergency Day 2025 audit.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Aetiology-dependent short- and long-term survival after paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the call profiles, physician-delivered interventions and physician staffing of ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) in Austria.
methodsThis was a sub-analysis of the Austrian Emergency Day 2024 audit, which was a prospective, observational, nationwide study conducted across 98 out of 149 public physician-staffed emergency medical services (EMS) in Austria. During 24 hours all emergency calls, to which EMS physicians were dispatched, were documented. Data collection included characteristics of participating EMS bases and non-patient-related details of each emergency call.
resultsIncluded in the study were 79 GEMS bases conducting 338 calls and 19 HEMS bases conducting 60 calls were included. The proportion of primary calls was lower (71.7% vs. 83.7%) and the proportion of interfacility transfers higher (18.3% vs. 4.7%) in HEMS than GEMS (p < 0.001). The median (interquartile range, IQR) duration of emergency calls was longer for HEMS than GEMS missions with 62min (IQR 53-71min) vs. 47min (IQR 44-50min) (p < 0.001). The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) score was lower for GEMS than HEMS calls (3 (2-4) vs. 4 (3-5); p < 0.001). The over-triage rate was higher in the GEMS than HEMS group (58.4% vs. 29.6%; p < 0.001). Except for sonography use, no difference in the rate of diagnostic or therapeutic physician-delivered interventions was observed between GEMS and HEMS. Characteristics of physician staffing did not differ between GEMS and HEMS.
conclusionRelevant differences in the call profiles but not physician-delivered interventions or physician staffing exist between GEMS and HEMS in Austria. The HEMS are more frequently tasked to emergencies with a higher severity and conduct interfacility transfers more frequently than GEMS.
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.