Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2026
Live video versus audio-only emergency calls in simulated emergency medical dispatch: a randomized mixed-methods study.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06598592 (Video Emergency Calls of Bystanders - a Simulation Study), which is not on this 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.
Video Emergency Calls of Bystanders - a Simulation Study
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDispatchers in emergency medical coordination centers face the challenge that bystanders can usually only provide verbal information during medical emergency calls. However, accurate information is crucial for dispatching appropriate resources. With the rise of smartphone use, video calls offer new possibilities. However, little is known about the broader impact of video calls on call duration, accuracy, and usability during emergency calls.
methodsTwenty dispatchers and 80 laypersons participated in a randomized simulation study. Each dispatcher managed four standardized emergency scenarios, two via audio-only and two via video call, using a web-based platform (FlagMii® EML). Outcomes investigated total call duration, accuracy of the dispatch decision compared to the simulated scenario, and occurrence of technical issues. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the primary outcome. Furthermore, a focus group was held with dispatchers (n = 9) and qualitative data analysis was performed.
resultsThe median duration of emergency calls was significantly longer in the video group (307 s, IQR 249–369) compared to the audio group (222 s, IQR 175–288), corresponding to a 40% increase (p < 0.001). The accuracy of the dispatch codes with the simulated emergency was higher in the video group (41.1% vs. 25.0%), though this difference did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.71, p = 0.085). The focus group identified six topics of interest: medical, technical, legal/ethical, psychological, institutional, and human/environmental aspects. While video was considered valuable for verifying first aid and assessing urgency, concerns were raised about technical reliability, dispatcher workload, emotional burden, and cultural acceptability.
conclusionsReal-time video emergency calls can support medical dispatchers and may improve assessment accuracy, but at the cost of longer call duration. Implementation should be guided by careful consideration of various factors including technical, ethical, and psychological factors. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of video calls on real-world emergency call performance and patient outcomes.
trial registrationThis study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06598592) on September, 11 2024.
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.