SynthesisHerz2021
Current evidence of survival benefit between chest-compression only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest : Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence to support a better cardiopulmonary resuscitation method between standard vs. continuous chest compression (STD-CPR vs. CCC-CPR) is lacking. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest database from 1985 to 26 September 2019 restricted to randomized controlled trial, human study, and English articles. Quality assessment of between-study heterogeneity and a trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted. We estimated overall significance with 80% power and adjusted Z values thresholds using O'Brien-Fleming α‑spending function. Required information size with 21% relative risk using the estimation between-group incidences provided from the median rate across trials was determined. Inconclusive TSA result will lead to size estimation of future RCT. Quality of evidence was analyzed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Handbook and TSA.
resultsBased on three trials in OHCA with dispatcher-guided and bystander-initiated CPR, our meta-analysis favors CCC-CPR for survival to hospital discharge, compared to STD-CPR (RR [Risk Ratio] = 1.21[1.01-1.46], 95% CI, p = 0.68, I
conclusionBased on these analyses, evidence is inadequate to conclude the superiority of one CPR method over the other. Further trials with larger numbers of patients are needed to deem a conclusive and stable meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32975628What 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.