ArticleResuscitation plus2025
The use of drone-delivered Automated External Defibrillators in the emergency response for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A simulation study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deployment, dispatch, and delivery: a scoping review of drone-delivered AED for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Drone-delivered automated external defibrillators in prehospital emergency care: implementation evidence, bottlenecks, and conceptual integration with artificial intelligence and next-generation communications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drones are now being used to deliver Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Delays occur before (between emergency call and drone take-off) and after drone flight itself (related to bystander interaction with drone/AED). The emergency call-handler may have an important role in helping bystanders retrieve and use an AED. Methods: Following an emergency (999) call for simulated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, a remote drone was activated and made autonomous Beyond Visual Line of Sight flights to the scene. Real-time communications between drone operator and call-handler allowed participants to receive updates about drone progress. Outcomes included hands-off CPR time, time away from patient's side retrieving the AED, time from emergency call to start of drone flight, and time from drone arrival to AED shock. We used video-recording, emergency-call audio and post-simulation interviews to gather additional information about participants' experiences. Results: We conducted 11 single bystander simulations and successfully delivered an AED on 9 occasions. It took (median) 2:18 min (interquartile range, IQR 2:13-2:38 min) from emergency call to drone take-off, and a further 4:35 min (3:39-4:46 min) once the drone had arrived on scene until first shock. Hands-off CPR time was 2:32 min (2:01-2:46 min); 0:16 min (0:13-0:21 min) of this was spent retrieving the AED. Bystanders retrieved the AED safely and interacted well with the drone, but often struggled with AED use. Conclusion: We demonstrated effective real-time communication during simulations. Drone start-up procedures were quick but there were delays once the drone arrived on scene. Bystanders and call-handlers need more support to effectively use drone-delivered AEDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.