ArticleBMJ open2019
Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the benefits of digital twins in neurosurgery: a systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Medical Digital Twin: A Review on Technical Principles and Clinical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2024Observational
- The impact of bias of underlying literature in guidelines on its recommendations: assessment of the German fluoride guideline.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Article
- Change over Five Years in Important Measures of Methodological Quality and Reporting in Randomized Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared with non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Comparative efficacy of pharmacological agents on reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in the hypertriglyceridemia population: a network meta-analysis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC).
designA cross-sectional review.
settingAll RCTs cited as references in the 2015 AHA guidelines update for CPR and ECC were extracted. After excluding non-human trials, studies that analysed existing RCTs, and RCTs published in a letter format, two reviewers assessed the risk of bias among RCTs included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in six domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting) was used.
resultsTwo hundred seventy-three RCTs were selected for the analyses. Of these RCTs, 78.8% had a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, mostly (87.7%) non-drug trials. In drug trials, the proportion of trials with a low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel was 73.0%. The proportion of RCTs with an unclear risk of bias were higher for random sequence generation (38.5%) and allocation concealment (34.1%) than in other domains. Unclear risk of bias proportions was 65.4% for random sequence generation and 57.7% for allocation concealment before the introduction of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) but decreased to 31.3% and 32.2% after the 2010 CONSORT update, respectively.
conclusionsThe proportion of RCTs with an unclear risk of bias was still high for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in the 2015 AHA guidelines for CPR and ECC. The risk of bias should be considered when interpreting and applying the CPR guidelines. Authors should plan and report their research using CONSORT guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to reduce the risk of bias.
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.