ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Helicopter emergency medical services for interfacility transfers: an Italian expert consensus.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHelicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) play a pivotal role in time-dependent interfacility transfers; however, the absence of standardized activation criteria in Italy contributes to heterogeneous decision-making and variable resource utilization. This expert consensus aimed to develop structured, context-informed recommendations to support appropriate HEMS activation for secondary transfers within the Italian EMS-HEMS system.
methodsA multidisciplinary panel of Italian clinicians with expertise in prehospital emergency medicine, critical care, and HEMS operations conducted a modified Delphi process. Clinical domains were structured using the PICO framework. A PICO-specific scoping review (2010-2026) was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and major international guideline repositories to inform deliberations. Evidence was narratively synthesized and integrated with expert judgment. Statements were subjected to anonymous voting using a 1-9 Likert scale, with a predefined consensus threshold of ≥ 80% agreement.
resultsConsensus-based statements were developed across major time-critical domains, including acute coronary syndromes, stroke, traumatic injuries, aortic emergencies, cardiac tamponade, toxicological conditions, and hyperbaric emergencies. HEMS was considered most appropriate when transfer time reduction is clinically meaningful and when advanced in-transit care may improve stabilization. The panel proposed the RATIONAL-HEMS model, integrating clinical priority (A-C classification) with logistical and system-level constraints to guide transparent and reproducible decision-making.
conclusionsThis Italian expert consensus provides a structured framework for secondary HEMS activation tailored to the national organizational context. The proposed model emphasizes time to definitive care, resource stewardship, and adaptability, and may support regional harmonization and future prospective validation studies.
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.