ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2018
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2018. 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objectiveCardiac arrest is associated with high morbidity and mortality and imposes a significant burden on the healthcare system. Management of cardiac arrest patients is complex and involves approaches with multiple interventions. Here, we aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding the interventions used in cardiac arrest cases. DESIGN AND
settingReview of systematic reviews (SRs), conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
methodsA systematic search was conducted to identify all Cochrane SRs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors.
resultsWe included nine Cochrane SRs assessing compression techniques or devices (three SRs), defibrillation (two SRs) and other interventions (two SRs on hypothermia interventions, one on airway management and one on pharmacological intervention). The reviews included found qualities of evidence ranging from unknown to high, regarding the benefits of these interventions.
conclusionThis review included nine Cochrane systematic reviews that provided a diverse range of qualities of evidence (unknown to high) regarding interventions that are used in management of cardiac arrest. High-quality evidence was found by two systematic reviews as follows: (a) increased survival until hospital discharge with continuous compression, compared with interrupted chest compression, both administered by an untrained person and (b) no difference regarding the return of spontaneous circulation, comparing aminophylline and placebo, for bradyasystolic patients under cardiac arrest. Further studies are needed in order to reach solid conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.