ArticleAcute and critical care2018
Comparison between Gel Pad Cooling Device and Water Blanket during Target Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest Patients.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrogels for Climate Change Mitigation: Applications in Water Harvesting, Passive Cooling, and Environmental Solutions.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Factors influencing deviation from target temperature during targeted temperature management in postcardiac arrest patients.Open heart · 2023Observational
- Management of post-cardiac arrest syndrome.Acute and critical care · 2019Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTarget temperature management (TTM) improves neurological outcomes for comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We compared the efficacy and safety of a gel pad cooling device (GP) and a water blanket (WB) during TTM.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis in a single hospital, wherein we measured the time to target temperature (<34℃) after initiation of cooling to evaluate the effectiveness of the cooling method. The temperature farthest from 33℃ was selected every hour during maintenance. Generalized estimation equation analysis was used to compare the absolute temperature differences from 33℃ during the maintenance period. If the selected temperature was not between 32℃ and 34℃, the hour was considered a deviation from the target. We compared the deviation rates during hypothermia maintenance to evaluate the safety of the different methods.
resultsA GP was used for 23 patients among of 53 patients, and a WB was used for the remaining. There was no difference in baseline temperature at the start of cooling between the two patient groups (GP, 35.7℃ vs. WB, 35.6℃; P=0.741). The time to target temperature (134.2 minutes vs. 233.4 minutes, P=0.056) was shorter in the GP patient group. Deviation from maintenance temperature (2.0% vs. 23.7%, P<0.001) occurred significantly more frequently in the WB group. The mean absolute temperature difference from 33℃ during the maintenance period was 0.19℃ (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17℃ to 0.21℃) in the GP group and 0.76℃ (95% CI, 0.71℃ to 0.80℃) in the WB group. GP significantly decreased this difference by 0.59℃ (95% CI, 0.44℃ to 0.75℃; P<0.001).
conclusionsThe GP was superior to the WB for strict temperature control during TTM.
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.