ArticleResuscitation plus2022
External validation and insights about the calibration of the return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest (RACA) score.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatial heterogeneity in risk-adjusted return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the urbanization-adjusted RACA model.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- P-ROSC, UB-ROSC, and RACA Scores in Predicting the Return of Spontaneous Circulation in Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Cohort.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after cardiac arrest (RACA) score was developed as a tool to predict ROSC probability (pROSC) based on easily available information and it could be useful to compare the performances of different EMS agencies or the effects of eventual interventions.We performed an external validation of the RACA score in a cohort of out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients managed by the EMS of the metropolitan city of Bologna, Italy. Methods: We analyzed data from 2,310 OHCA events prospectively collected between January 2009 and June 2021. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the ROC curve (AUROC), while the calibration belts were used for the comparison of observed versus expected ROSC rates. The AUROCs from our cohort and other validation cohorts were compared using a studentized range test. Results: The AUROC for the study population was 0.691, comparable to that described by previous validation studies. Despite an acceptable overall calibration, we found a poor calibration for asystole and low pROSC ranges in PEA and shockable rhythms. The model showed a good calibration for patients aged over 80, while no differences in performance were found when evaluating events before and after the implementation of 2015 ERC guidelines. Conclusions: Despite AUROC values being similar in different validation studies for RACA score, we suggest separating the different rhythms when assessing ROSC probability with the RACA score, especially for asystole.
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.