ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Nordic-Baltic EMS benchmarking-important progress but fragile data foundations.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
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
backgroundThe Nordic-Baltic EMS Network has worked for years to establish comparable quality indicators and benchmarking across emergency medical services (EMS) in participating countries. Three reports, including the recent 2025 edition, promote transparency and collaboration. While these efforts are commendable, concerns remain about the validity of the underlying data. This commentary focuses on such data issues within Denmark and Norway. MAIN BODY: The 2025 report provides descriptive information on EMS organization and proposes shared indicators such as dispatch times, bystander cardio-pulmonary resuscitation rates, and conveyance statistics. However, meaningful comparison depends on standardized, validated data-currently lacking. EMS data across the region are collected under varying definitions and frameworks, making cross-country benchmarking prone to misinterpretation. In Denmark, operational data from the electronic prehospital medical record (ePMR) and separate dispatch systems require extensive processing before research use. Norway faces greater fragmentation, relying mainly on AMIS dispatch data with limited linkage to patient records or registries. Consequently, apparent performance differences may reflect documentation practices rather than true quality disparities. Both countries have strong registry cultures for hospital and primary care data, yet prehospital registry infrastructure is absent. Temporary projects and limited indicators cannot replace sustainable, validated registries. Without these, longitudinal analyses and international benchmarking remain unreliable. SHORT
conclusionThe Nordic-Baltic EMS reports represent significant progress, but reliance on operational data introduces uncertainty. Establishing validated, registry-based EMS data systems should be a national priority, supported by the Nordic-Baltic EMS Network, to enable meaningful benchmarking and evidence-based improvements in patient care.
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.