ArticleJournal of intensive care2020
Association between low pH and unfavorable neurological outcome among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients treated by extracorporeal CPR: do not dismiss confounders!
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of ECPR initiation time and age on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: do not underestimate pre-hospital time!Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- The association between low pH value and unfavorable neurological outcome among the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patient treated by extra-corporeal CPR: sensitivity analysis.Journal of intensive care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, Okada et al. reported an association between low pH value before the implementation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and 1-month unfavorable neurological outcome among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with ECPR. Nevertheless, we believe that some methodological flaws deserve their conclusions. The time duration between OHCA occurrence and blood gas analysis (BGA), a major confounder for misinterpretation, was not taken into account. It is not reported whether the result of BGA analysis was considered and/or treated, and if ECPR implementation decision had been influenced by the results analysis. Furthermore, the no-flow duration and the in-hospital phase confounders for neurological outcome are not included as covariates in the logistic regression. Therefore, we believe that causes and consequences should not be confused: the longer is the no-flow duration, the greater are the metabolic consequences.
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.