In this paper, together with researchers from Harvard and the Institute of Public Health at the Charite, we used data from the CARES dataset to answer some questions regarding the use of automated external defibrillator (AED) in the United States.
It is known from previous studies that AED use does improve clinical outcome of those who are treated with AED. Less known is whether the treatment effect of AEDs administrated by untrained bystanders has a similar beneficial effect, especially because
1) so called neighborhood characteristics have not been taken into account previous analyses and
2) it is difficult to find the right control group.
This paper focuses on these two aspects by taking neighborhood characteristics into account and using so called “negative controls” (i.e. patients who were treated with AED but did not have a shockable rhythm).
I had a lot of fun in this project: i like when my skills are helpful outside of the fields that I am not usually working in. NOt only does it allow me to see how research methodology is applied in different fields, but it also help me understand my own field much better. After all, both AED and STEMO are methods that aim to deliver treatment to a patient as soon as possible, in fact “pre-hospitalisation”. If only a CT scanner could be that small… or can it…
The main lifting on this publication has been done by LWA. thanks for letting me join for the adventure!
The paper can be found on pubmed, and on my mendeley profile