ReviewResuscitation plus2021
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation for cardiac arrest when patients are in the prone position: A systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2021. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving surgical team confidence for intraoperative cardiac arrest in non-standard positions (sitting beach chair and prone): a prospective in-situ simulation study with three-month follow-up.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The effect of hand and body position on chest compression quality and rescuer fatigue in prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Prone Positioning for Patients With COVID-19-Induced Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Flipping the Script.Respiratory care · 2023Review
- The recovery position for maintenance of adequate ventilation and the prevention of cardiac arrest: A systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2022Review
- Resuscitation plus - Initial successes and future direction.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo perform a systematic review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and/or defibrillation in the prone position compared to turning the patient supine prior to starting CPR and/or defibrillation.
methodsThe search included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, and medRxiv on December 9, 2020. The population included adults and children in any setting with cardiac arrest while in the prone position. The outcomes included arterial blood pressure and end-tidal capnography during CPR, time to start CPR and defibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, survival and survival with favorable neurologic outcome to discharge, 30 days or longer. ROBINS-I was performed to assess risk of bias for observational studies.
resultsThe systematic review identified 29 case reports (32 individual cases), two prospective observational studies, and two simulation studies. The observational studies enrolled 17 patients who were declared dead in the supine position and reported higher mean systolic blood pressure from CPR in prone position (72 mmHg vs 48 mmHg,
conclusionsWe identified a limited number of observational studies and case reports comparing prone versus supine CPR and/or defibrillation. Prone CPR may be a reasonable option if immediate supination is difficult or poses unacceptable risks to the patient.
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.