ArticlePloS one2020
Effectiveness of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in improving the survival and neurological recovery of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A nationwide patient cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in the rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resulting in favourable neurological outcomes according to the regional deprivation index.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The Role of Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis.Emergency medicine international · 2025Review
- Global Sex Disparities in Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Near-peer mentoring and virtual reality for adult basic life support education in high school students.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFew studies have focused on enhancing causality and yielding unbiased estimates on the effectiveness of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) on the outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in a real-world setting. Therefore, this study evaluated the effect of BCPR on the outcomes of OHCA and its differences according to the characteristics of OHCA.
methodsThis study enrolled all patients with OHCA of cardiac etiology treated by emergency medical services (EMS) in Korea from 2012 to 2015. The endpoints were survival and neurological recovery at discharge, and the main exposure was BCPR conducted by a layperson. The effect of BCPR was analyzed after adjusting for confounders, determined using a directed acyclic graph, by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and model-based standardization (STR). Moreover, differences in subgroups and time trends were evaluated.
resultsAmong 10,505 eligible patients after excluding those with missing data on BCPR, 7,721 patients received BCPR, accounting for 74.3% of EMS-treated OHCA patients. BCPR increased the odds of survival and good neurological recovery at discharge by 1.67- (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.44-1.93) and 1.93- (95% CI: 1.56-2.39) fold, respectively, in the IPTW analysis. These findings were comparable to those obtained with STR. The odds ratios were 2.39 (95% CI: 1.91-2.94) and 2.70 (95% CI: 1.94-3.41), respectively, in the sensitivity analysis of the missing BCPR information considering confounders and the outcome variable. However, the effect of qualified BCPR was not evenly distributed, and it did not increase with time. BCPR was likely to be more effective in male patients aged <65 years, those who experienced an OHCA in a private place or non-capital region, and those with shockable rhythm at the scene.
conclusionBased on data from a nationwide registry, the estimated effect of BCPR on survival and neurological recovery was moderate and did not improve from 2012 to 2015.
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.