Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33504366›Full record

Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2021

External validation of multimodal termination of resuscitation rules for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in the COVID-19 era.

Haewon Jung, Mi Jin Lee, Jae Wan Cho, Sang Hun Lee, Suk Hee Lee, You Ho Mun, Han-Sol Chung, Yang Hun Kim, Gyun Moo Kim, Sin-Youl Park and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reevaluating basic life support termination criteria using post-arrival data in Japanese out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Haewon JungDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 680, Gukchaebosang-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 41944, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2303-3142
Mi Jin LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 680, Gukchaebosang-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 41944, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3773-8047
Jae Wan ChoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 680, Gukchaebosang-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 41944, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5342-155X
Sang Hun LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4303-7375
Suk Hee LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5685-5049
You Ho MunDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0585-8674
Han-Sol ChungDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 680, Gukchaebosang-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 41944, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2193-9060
Yang Hun KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Daegu Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9581-4562
Gyun Moo KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5560-4069
Sin-Youl ParkDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4005-1956
Jae Cheon JeonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3746-3650
Changho KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, 680, Gukchaebosang-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, 41944, Republic of Korea. kch9754130@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7552-8200
WinCOVID-19 consortium
Daegu Catholic University · KRKyungpook National University · KRKyungpook National University Hospital · KRYeungnam University CollegeDaegu Fatima Hospital · KRKeimyung University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFutile resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era can lead to risk of disease transmission and unnecessary transport. Various existing basic or advanced life support (BLS or ALS, respectively) rules for the termination of resuscitation (TOR) have been derived and validated in North America and Asian countries. This study aimed to evaluate the external validation of these rules in predicting the survival outcomes of OHCA patients in the COVID-19 era.

methodsThis was a multicenter observational study using the WinCOVID-19 Daegu registry data collected during February 18-March 31, 2020. The subjects were patients who showed cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac etiology. The outcomes of each rule were compared to the actual patient survival outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, false positive value (FPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of each TOR rule were evaluated.

resultsIn total, 170 of the 184 OHCA patients were eligible and evaluated. TOR was recommended for 122 patients based on the international basic life support termination of resuscitation (BLS-TOR) rule, which showed 85% specificity, 74% sensitivity, 0.8% FPV, and 99% PPV for predicting unfavorable survival outcomes. When the traditional BLS-TOR rules and KoCARC TOR rule II were applied to our registry, one patient met the TOR criteria but survived at hospital discharge. With regard to the FPV (upper limit of 95% confidence interval < 5%), specificity (100%), and PPV (> 99%) criteria, only the KoCARC TOR rule I, which included a combination of three factors including not being witnessed by emergency medical technicians, presenting with an asystole at the scene, and not experiencing prehospital shock delivery or return of spontaneous circulation, was found to be superior to all other TOR rules.

conclusionAmong the previous nine BLS and ALS TOR rules, KoCARC TOR rule I was most suitable for predicting poor survival outcomes and showed improved diagnostic performance. Further research on variations in resources and treatment protocols among facilities, regions, and cultures will be useful in determining the feasibility of TOR rules for COVID-19 patients worldwide.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesMedical FutilityAgedAged, 80 and overCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCOVID-19Emergency Medical ServicesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestPredictive Value of TestsRegistriesRepublic of KoreaResuscitation OrdersCardiopulmonary resuscitationCoronavirus diseaseEthicsHeart arrestPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID33504366
PMCPMC7838848
OpenAlexW3117783004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.