ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Assessing consistency of the emergency medical services benefit score: an intra- and inter-rater reliability study in a belgian helicopter medical center.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Emergency Medical Service Benefit Score (EBS) was recently developed from the former Helicopter Benefit Score (HBS) to provide a standardized tool for evaluating the benefits of prehospital interventions. While the score has been implemented in daily practice, no study has yet assessed its reliability under real-life conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the EBS in a helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) context, and to explore whether reliability is influenced by rater profession.
methodsA single-centre quantitative validation study was conducted at the Centre Médical Héliporté (CMH) in Bra-sur-Lienne, Belgium. Ten physicians and eight nurses participated in the intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, which were performed using mission records collected prospectively between July 2023 and February 2024. Physicians re-rated 46 previously assessed patients to evaluate intra-rater reliability, while both physicians and nurses rated 21 identical cases for inter-rater comparison. Anonymized intervention reports were randomized, and scores were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe dataset comprised 679 interventions. For intra-rater reliability, 444 paired ratings were analyzed, yielding an ICC of 0.894 (95% CI: 0.837-0.964 Inter-rater reliability was high at the group level, with an overall mean-measure ICC of 0.974 (95% CI: 0.954-0.988), while single-measure ICCs indicated moderate-to-high individual-level agreement. Subgroup analysis showed ICCs of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.937-0.984) among physicians and 0.931 (95% CI: 0.876-0.931) among nurses. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThis study provides the first evidence of the high reliability of the EBS in real-life prehospital settings, confirming that the EBS can be applied consistently when assessing prehospital missions in a HEMS context. Physicians and nurses both achieved substantial agreement, supporting the tool's use across professional groups. Further research should extend to other types of prehospital emergency teams, such as ground emergency medical services and Paramedical Interventional Teams, and examine additional aspects of validity, including criterion and content validity, to further consolidate the role of the EBS in evaluating prehospital 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.