Effectiveness of ultraportable automated external defibrillators: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ultraportable automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are a new generation of defibrillators that are small, lightweight, easy to carry on one's person, and affordable for personal and home use. They offer the opportunity to increase AED availability in case of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and therefore improve outcomes.We aimed to review evidence supporting the potential effect on outcomes and the performance of these ultraportable AEDs. Methods: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from 2012 to July 4th, 2024 to identify any studies related to ultraportable AED. The population was adult and children with OHCA who were treated with an ultra-portable AED. All outcomes were accepted. We limited study designs to randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies. Data charting was done by the primary author using standardized data abstraction forms. Results: The search strategy identified 54 studies (Pubmed = 26, Embase = 28, with 19 duplicates). We included three articles in the final review. One study was a medico-economic simulation study including 600,000 simulated patients, one is the study protocol of cluster randomized trial of providing ultraportable AEDs to first responders and one is an abstract with preliminary results of this trial reporting 1805 community responders recruited, 903 allocated to ultraportable AED. No studies to date have reported patient outcomes. Conclusion: This review found no evidence of ultraportable AED device performance, clinical or safety outcomes. There is an urgent need for further research to determine the safety and effectiveness of ultraportable AEDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it