ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using a Novel Method.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of scientific content by researchers, as well as the knowledge networks and working groups of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, can help to improve and expand new scientific evidence in this field. The aim of this study was to identify the global scientific publications on cardiopulmonary resuscitation research using a novel method. The method used was based on obtaining bibliographic data automatically from scientific publications through the use of the Scopus Database API Interface. A total of 17,917 results were obtained, with a total of 60,226 reports and 53,634 authors. Six categories were detected with 38.56% corresponding to cardiac arrest, 21.8% to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 17.16% to life-support training and education, 12.45% to ethics and decision-making in cardiac arrest, 4.77% to therapeutic treatment, and 3.72% to life-support techniques. Analyzing and identifying the main scientific contributions to this field of study can make it possible to establish collaboration networks and propose new lines of research, as well as to unify criteria for action. Future research should delve into the analyses of the other elements involved in this area.
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.