ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
A comparison of the outcome of CPR according to AHA 2005 ACLS and AHA 2010 ACLS guidelines in cardiac arrest: multicenter study.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Life Support vs. Basic Life Support for Patients With Trauma in Prehospital Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival with sequel-free recovery rates between the patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) according to 2005 and 2010 guidelines. This study was conducted in the Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk and Kartal Lütfi Kırdar Training and Research Hospital between dates of October 2010 and 28 February 2011 after approval of Ethics Committee. In the first months of the study, CPR was performed according to AHA 2005 ACLS guidelines (Group-1), while CPR was performed according to AHA 2010 ACLS guidelines after November 2010 (Group-2). Patients were assessed for neurological deficit with Cerebral Performance Categories Scale. Mean age was found as 69.01±13.05 (minimum: 21, maximum: 92) in 86 patients included. Of the 33 patients underwent CPR in the Group 1, ROSC was achieved in 51.5%; and 6.1% of these patients were discharged. Of the 53 patients underwent CPR in the Group 2, ROSC was achieved in 37.7%; and 9.4% of these patients were discharged. Although the number of living patients in Group 2 was higher than Group 1, the difference was not found statistically significant (5 versus 2), (P>0.05). But, neurological outcomes were found better with 2010 compared to 2005 guidelines (3/7 versus 0/2 good cerebral performance). It was found that the 2005 CPR guidelines practices in ED were more successful than the 2010 CPR guidelines practices in ROSC, but less successful in the rate of discharge from hospital and neurological sequel-free discharge rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26885104PMC4723949W2419406665What 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.