ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing the appropriateness of helicopter emergency medical services for non-traumatic emergencies in a medically underserved rural area, Japan.
Article in PloS one, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHelicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are essential in trauma care, but their role in non-traumatic emergencies remains unclear, particularly in medically underserved rural areas where long total prehospital times and limited specialty care access complicate emergency response.
objectivesTo evaluate the appropriateness of HEMS dispatches in non-trauma emergencies by assessing undertriage and overtriage based on clinical necessity and total prehospital time in rural western Kochi Prefecture, Japan.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) requiring emergency transport for moderate to severe non-traumatic conditions during HEMS operational hours from 2017 to 2021. HEMS necessity was classified as "absolute" (treatment unavailable at local core hospitals) or "relative" (critical condition benefiting from shorter transport). Appropriateness was defined as concordance between actual transport modality and predefined necessity criteria, with undertriage and overtriage determined by comparing the actual primary HEMS dispatch requests against these criteria and regional total prehospital times.
resultsOf the 2,312 eligible patients, 63 received primary HEMS dispatches and 2,249 ground EMS (GEMS). Among HEMS dispatches, 56 of 63 (88.9%) were overtriaged, while seven (11.1%) were appropriately triaged. Among GEMS transports, 248 of 2,249 (11.0%) retrospectively met HEMS criteria, yielding an 11.0% undertriage rate. Overtriaged cases included patients lacking relative necessity criteria or total prehospital time advantage.
conclusionsIn medically underserved rural regions, clinical severity alone may be insufficient for determining HEMS necessity in non-traumatic emergencies. Incorporating total prehospital time advantage and regional infrastructure consideration may refine dispatch decision-making and improve HEMS utilization appropriateness.
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.