ArticleResuscitation2019
Prognostication after cardiac arrest: Results of an international, multi-professional survey.
Article in Resuscitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 6. Post-cardiac arrest care.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2025: post-resuscitation care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Guideline
- Prediction of good neurological outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a systematic review.Intensive care medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Time-specific comparison of gray-white matter ratio models for predicting outcomes after cardiac arrest: basal ganglia as the leading model.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Decision-Making Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Within a Multidisciplinary Neuroprognostication Pathway in a Tertiary Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Wolf Creek XVIII Part 8: Wolf Creek Innovator in Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation Science Award.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Distinct Trajectories of Consciousness Recovery During Targeted Temperature Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors: A Cluster Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies after cardiac arrest.Current opinion in critical care · 2025Review
- How much information is needed to predict outcomes after cardiac arrest?Resuscitation · 2025Article
- Recovery Potential in Patients After Cardiac Arrest Who Die After Limitations or Withdrawal of Life Support.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cerebrospinal Creatine Kinase BB Isoenzyme: A Biomarker for Predicting Outcome After Cardiac Arrest.Neurocritical care · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of grey-white matter ratio obtained within two hours after return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: A multicenter, observational study.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Validation of the NULL-EASE Score for Predicting Survival in a Multiethnic Asian Cohort of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Enhancing post-arrest prognostication through good outcome prediction.Resuscitation · 2024Article
- Review
- Paucity of neuroprognostic testing after cardiac arrest in the United States.Resuscitation · 2023Article
- Precision Care in Cardiac Arrest: ICECAP (PRECICECAP) Study Protocol and Informatics Approach.Neurocritical care · 2022Article
- Prognostication in Acute Neurological Emergencies.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2022Article
- European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2021: post-resuscitation care.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Novel approaches to prediction in severe brain injury.Current opinion in neurology · 2020Review
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 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimWe explored preferences for prognostic test performance characteristics and error tolerance in decisions regarding withdrawal or continuation of life-sustaining therapy (LST) after cardiac arrest in a diverse cohort of medical providers. METHODOLOGY: We distributed a survey through professional societies and research networks. We asked demographic characteristics, preferences for prognostic test performance characteristics and views on acceptable false positive rates for decisions about LST after cardiac arrest.
resultsOverall, 640 respondents participated in our survey. Most respondents were attending physicians (74%) with >10 years of experience (59%) and practiced at academic centers (77%). Common specialties were neurology (22%), neuro- or general critical care (24%) and palliative care (31%). The majority (56%) felt an acceptable FPR for withdrawal of LST from patients who might otherwise have recovered was ≤0.1%. Acceptable FPRs for continuing LST in patients with unrecognized irrecoverable injury was higher, with 59% choosing a threshold ≤1%. Compared to providers with >10 years of experience, those with <5 years thought lower FPRs were acceptable (P < 0.001 for both). Palliative care providers accepted significantly higher FPRs for withdrawal of LST (P < 0.0001), and critical care providers accepted significantly higher FPRs for provision of long-term LST (P = 0.02). With regard to test performance characteristics, providers favored accuracy over timeliness, and prefer tests be optimized to predictrather than favorable outcomes.
conclusionMedical providers are comfortable with low acceptable FPR for withdrawal (≤0.1%) and continuation (≤1%) of LST after cardiac arrest. These FPRs may be lower than can be achieved with current prognostic modalities.
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.