Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Variation in prehospital ACS care within a single city: a bicentric observational study (MONAH-1 subgroup analysis).
Observational study in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a time-critical medical emergency in which early guideline-based prehospital diagnosis and treatment are crucial for the subsequent care pathway. The aim of this study was to compare documented adherence to selected prehospital ACS process indicators between two provider structures operating within the same municipal EMS system.
methodsAs part of the retrospective, bicentric observational study MONAH-1, all prehospital physician missions with typical ACS diagnoses in Magdeburg between 2014 and 2018 were analysed. This prespecified intra-urban subgroup analysis compared one EMS physician base staffed by MD1 with two EMS physician bases staffed by MD2. Because case retrieval was diagnosis-targeted from archived protocols rather than based on a prospectively maintained screening registry, a full flow diagram of all EMS missions could not be reconstructed reliably; endpoint-specific denominators are therefore reported in the text and tables. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age and gender only and should be interpreted as partially adjusted exploratory models.
resultsA total of 1,438 emergency physician interventions were evaluated (MD1: n = 661; MD2: n = 777). MD1 showed documented higher rates of 12-lead ECGs (76.9% vs. 43.5%; aOR 4.24 [95% CI 3.36-5.35]), ASA administration (91.4% vs. 70.9%; aOR 4.38 [3.19-6.00]) and heparin administration (92.6% vs. 68.0%; aOR 5.86 [4.21-8.16]). In the descriptive indication-positive subgroup with documented VAS ≥ 4, morphine was documented more often at MD1 (70.6% vs. 54.5%); the exploratory adjusted morphine model was based on missions with documented pain assessment (aOR 2.67 [2.04-3.50]). No significant differences were found for indication-based nitro-glycerine and oxygen administration. Prehospital dwell time was longer at MD1 (median 34 vs. 29 min; p < 0.001).
conclusionDocumented adherence to selected prehospital ACS process indicators differed between the two providers. MD1 showed higher documented rates for several process measures, but the retrospective design, heterogeneous documentation formats, limited case-mix adjustment, and the possibility of reverse causation for dwell time preclude causal inference or conclusions about patient benefit. The findings are hypothesis-generating and primarily relevant for local quality assurance and prospective validation.
trial registrationThe study was registered retrospectively in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00036944) on 27 August 2025.
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.