Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35177465›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Importance of reporting survival as incidence: a cross-sectional comparative study on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry data from Germany and Norway.

Ingvild Beathe Myrhaugen Tjelmeland, Kristin Alm-Kruse, Jan-Thorsten Grasner, Cecilie Benedicte Isern, Barbara Jakisch, Jo Kramer-Johansen, Niels Renzing, Jan Wnent, Stephan Seewald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Ingvild Beathe Myrhaugen TjelmelandInstitute for Emergency Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany ingvild@nakos.no.ORCID 0000-0003-0362-1008
Kristin Alm-KruseFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jan-Thorsten GrasnerInstitute for Emergency Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Cecilie Benedicte IsernDivision of Prehospital Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Barbara JakischOrganization & Corporate Development, imland gGmbH, Rendsburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
Jo Kramer-JohansenDivision of Prehospital Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Niels RenzingInstitute for Emergency Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Jan WnentInstitute for Emergency Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Stephan SeewaldInstitute for Emergency Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth registries are a unique source of information about current practice and can describe disease burden in a population. We aimed to understand similarities and differences in the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR) and the Norwegian Cardiac Arrest Registry (NorCAR) and compare incidence and survival for patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

designA cross-sectional comparative analysis reporting incidence and outcome on a population level.

settingWe included data from the cardiac arrest registries in Germany and Norway.

participantsPatients resuscitated between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included, resulting in 29 222 cases from GRR and 16 406 cases from NorCAR. From GRR, only emergency medical services (EMS) reporting survival information for patients admitted to the hospital were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: This study focused on the EMS systems, the registries and the patients included in both registries. The results compare the total incidence, incidence of patients resuscitated by EMS, and the incidence of survival.

resultsWe found an incidence of 68 per 100 000 inhabitants in GRR and 63 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients treated by EMS was 67 in GRR and 53 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients arriving at a hospital was higher in GRR (24.3) than in NorCAR (15.1), but survival was similar (8 in GRR and 7.8 in NorCAR).

conclusionGRR is a voluntary registry, and in-hospital information is not reported for all cases. NorCAR has mandatory reporting from all EMS and hospitals. EMS in Germany starts treatment on more patients and bring a higher number to hospital, but we found no difference in the incidence of survival. This study has improved our knowledge of both registries and highlighted the importance of reporting survival as incidence when comparing registries.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationEmergency Medical ServicesOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansRegistriescardiac epidemiologyepidemiologypublic healthquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35177465
PMCPMC8860078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.