The issue of defibrillation by specially trained lay persons is not new to the medical literature though Colquhoun and colleagues provide only a brief insight into the existing research in the field. For example, there is substantial amount of past studies exploring the potential of PAD on survival and other outcomes of PAD (Pell et al, 2002; Culley et al, 2004; Engdahl, 2002), potential locations of AEDs (Becker et al, 1998), cost-effectiveness of different PAD strategies (Nichol, 2003), etc. The studies employed both qualitative (interviewing, observations) and quantitative (prospective randomized trials, surveys) methodologies to reveal comprehensive and multifaceted data on virtually every aspect of PAD.
However, the authors provided a very concise review of prior studies, and instead of analyzing and synthesizing the most credible research in the field they only briefly stated the results of some surveys and analytical works. Therefore, the declaration made by Colquhoun and colleagues that the PAD project launched in the UK many years ago relied on next to no published evidence of PAD strategies’ potential effectiveness seems to be an intentional understatement meant to place extra emphasis on the importance of Colquhoun’s study.
At the same time, there are really very few studies that seek to compare the effects of different PAD strategies within the framework of one study and particularly on the national scale in the UK. In this regard, the study can really be referred to as “…the first report of a national scheme that has incorporated PAD into mainstream health care provision” (p.279). Besides, expanding the body of knowledge and evidence pertaining to still developing PAD approach remains an important task in terms of resuscitation effectiveness improvement.
The main source of data was standard report forms