ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2026
Accuracy of Medically Experienced Emergency Dispatchers - A Unique Nationwide Model.
Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This research examined the accuracy of the Israeli model of emergency medical dispatch by comparing dispatchers' preliminary diagnosis with the working diagnosis of paramedics in the field. Methods: Data from emergency medical calls received by Magen David Adom between January 1st 2019 and December 31st 2019 were included. Primary analysis was done by directly comparing preliminary diagnoses made by dispatchers to the diagnoses made by paramedics. Secondary analysis was done by comparing the system identified by the dispatchers' preliminary diagnoses to the system identified by the paramedics' diagnoses. Tertiary analysis was done by subgrouping symptoms and syndromes by an expert panel to create a new preliminary diagnosis which was then compared with paramedic diagnosis. Results: Primary analysis showed a sensitivity of 48.8%, specificity of 97.3%, PPV of 53.0%, and NPV of 98.0%. Secondary analysis showed a sensitivity of 78.6%, specificity of 88.4%, PPV of 26.5%, and NPV of 99.2%. Tertiary analysis showed a sensitivity of 49.8%, specificity of 97.3%, PPV of 54.4%, and NPV of 97.9%. Conclusion: Medically experienced emergency dispatchers were able to obtain a high level of sensitivity determining preliminary diagnoses compared to ambulance crews in the field. Further research should focus on widening the variety of diagnoses investigated.
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.