ArticleCirculation. Population health and outcomes2026
Automated External Defibrillator Availability, Accessibility, and Usability in High-Risk Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Neighborhoods of Birmingham, Alabama.
Article in Circulation. Population health and outcomes, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutomated external defibrillators (AEDs) are rarely used by bystanders in Birmingham, Alabama. We sought to characterize AED availability, accessibility, and usability in the highest-risk out-of-hospital cardiac arrest neighborhoods of Birmingham.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive observational study from June 12 to August 27, 2025, in 3 Birmingham neighborhoods with the highest relative out-of-hospital cardiac arrest risk. Potential public AED sites, defined as properties other than single-family residences, were identified using Google Maps landmark descriptions. Sites were contacted by telephone, email, or in person to confirm AED presence, and device-specific data were collected in person. Outcomes included AED availability (presence of ≥1 AED), accessibility (public access and hours), and usability (ability to power on with pads). At-risk devices contained expired batteries and pads. Observed and effective AED densities were compared with the recommended 5 AEDs per square mile. Observed AED density was defined as AEDs per square mile, regardless of accessibility hours. Effective AED density was defined as AEDs per square mile adjusted for weekly hours of accessibility.
resultsA total of 287 potential AED locations were identified, and 284 (99%) were contacted and provided data. Fifty-six AEDs were reported at 43 locations (15.1%). Of these, 19 (33.9%) were not publicly accessible. Among the 37 publicly accessible AEDs, none were available 24 hours per day. Thirty-five (94.6%) were found in usable condition, and 5 (13.5%) were classified as at risk. Two (5.4%) were inoperable. The observed density of publicly usable AEDs was 13.5 AEDs per square mile, with an effective density of 3.7 AEDs per square mile due to limited hours of access.
conclusionsDespite exceeding the recommended AED density, limited public accessibility and maintenance issues substantially reduce effective AED coverage in Birmingham. Reporting effective AED density, which accounts for hours of access, reveals gaps between device presence and real-world accessibility.
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.