ArticleHeart, lung and vessels2014
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on impedance threshold devices in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Article in Heart, lung and vessels, 2014. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUncertainty persists on the clinical impact of impedance threshold devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We conducted an updated systematic review on impedance threshold devices.
methodsSeveral databases were searched for studies testing the effectiveness of impedance threshold devices in patients with cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint was long-term survival.
resultsSeven trials (11,254 patients) were included. In 4 studies (2,284 patients) impedance threshold devices were used with active compression-decompression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and in the others alone. Overall, impedance threshold devices did not impact on the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.17 [0.96-1.43], p=0.114), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.56 [0.97-2.50], p=0.065), or long-term survival (odds ratio=1.22 [0.94-1.58], p=0.127). These analyses were fraught with heterogeneity (respectively, p=0.055, p=0.236, and p=0.011) and inconsistency (respectively, I-squared=51% , I-squared=27% , and I-squared=67%). Exploratory analysis showed that combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.19 [1.00-1.40], p=0.045), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.60 [1.14-2.25], p=0.006), and long-term survival (odds ratio=1.52 [1.11-2.08], p=0.009). The favorable impact of the interaction between impedance threshold devices and active compression-decompression was also confirmed at meta-regression analysis (respectively, b=0.195 [0.004-0.387], p=0.045, b=0.500 [0.079-0.841], p=0.018, b=0.413 [0.063-0.764], p=0.021).
conclusionsThe evidence base on impedance threshold devices is apparently inconclusive, with a neutral impact on clinically relevant outcomes. However, exploratory analysis focusing on the combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression suggests that this combo treatment may be useful to improve patient prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25024992PMC4095837W2182053047What 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.