ArticleResuscitation2020
Cardiac arrest survivors lost to follow-up after 3-Months, 6-Months and 1-Year.
Article in Resuscitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of multi-domain data acquisition in patients at risk for hypoxic-ischemic brain injury following cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The Early Implementation of a Hub-and-Spoke Survivorship Pathway for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors: A 12-Month Formative Evaluation of the REVIVE Project.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Social determinants and pre-arrest care patterns associated with cardiac arrest and mortality.Resuscitation · 2024Article
- Evaluating novel methods of outcome assessment following cardiac arrest.Resuscitation · 2022Article
- One-year outcomes in individual domains of the cerebral performance category extended.Resuscitation plus · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong-term assessment of global functional outcomes in cardiac arrest (CA) survivors allows for evaluation of acute care practices and referral to rehabilitation services. Given that many post-CA patients are lost to follow-up (LTFU), we explored whether these patients are systematically different from those who complete follow-up based on demographic, resuscitation and outcome characteristics.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of 168 English-speaking CA survivors between 9/25/2016 and 5/31/2018. We measured demographic data and global functional outcomes using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) in-person at hospital discharge, and via telephone at 3-, 6-months, and 1-year. We compared patients LTFU (e.g., failure to contact or refused to follow-up) with those contacted. Patients who were hospitalized, in a rehabilitation facility, missed by the research team, or dead were considered not eligible for follow-up.
resultsOf the 116 patients eligible for follow-up at 3-months, the majority completed follow-up (n = 69; 59.5%) and 47 (40.5%) were LTFU. Conversely, at 6-months and 1-year, fewer subjects were assessed (42% and 47%) compared to those who were LTFU (58% and 53%), respectively. At 3-months, LTFU patients were younger, unmarried, and had longer ICU stay. At 6-months and 1-year, LTFU patients were primarily male, had a non-shockable primary rhythm, and non-cardiac arrest etiologies.
conclusionsOver one-third of patients are LTFU during the first year after CA, and differences emerged for demographics and characteristics of the event. Future research should account for the informative, non-random distribution of patients LTFU.
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.