ArticleBMJ open2026
Mapping the internationally reported evidence on physician-staffed helicopter transport in Japan: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectivesJapan's physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are widely deployed but published evidence is heterogeneous across indications, outcomes and study designs. We aimed to map the internationally reported, English-language literature evaluating physician-staffed HEMS in Japan and to identify evidence gaps requiring further research.
designScoping review was conducted using established methodological frameworks and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by backward and forward citation tracking. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies evaluating physician-staffed HEMS in Japan and reporting patient outcomes for any emergency condition published in English-language journals.
methodsWe conducted a systematic database search using terms related to physician-staffed HEMS in Japan. The original search (28 May 2024) was updated on 25 February 2026 using the same eligibility criteria. Two reviewers independently performed title/abstract screening followed by full-text screening to determine eligibility. We additionally performed backward and forward citation tracking of the included studies. We summarised characteristics of eligible studies descriptively using counts and proportions.
resultsThe updated search identified 341 records, and citation tracking identified 16 further studies, yielding 76 included studies. Publications increased over time (2016-2020: 32.9%; 2021-2026: 52.6%). Most studies were single-centre observational (55.3%) or registry-based (39.5%), with few multi-centre studies (5.3%). Trauma was the most frequent study population (25.0%), and mortality the most common primary outcome (35.5%). First authors were university-affiliated in 88.2% of studies, 39.5% appeared in a single aeromedical journal, and no study compared physician-staffed with non-physician HEMS.
conclusionThe internationally reported, English-language literature on physician-staffed HEMS in Japan has expanded over time, but remains dominated by retrospective observational designs, is produced largely by university-affiliated authors, and is concentrated in a small number of journals. Prospective multi-centre evaluation, comparison with non-physician HEMS, functional and longer-term outcomes, and economic evaluation were absent from the identified literature.
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.