ReviewResuscitation plus2022
The recovery position for maintenance of adequate ventilation and the prevention of cardiac arrest: A systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 11. First aid.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- The impact of different recovery positions on the perfusion of the lower forearm and comfort: A cross-over randomized controlled trial.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- The recovery position for maintenance of adequate ventilation and the prevention of cardiac arrest: A systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2022Review
- A randomised controlled trial to compare tracheal extubation quality in lateral and supine positions after general anaesthesia in children.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
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 11 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the use of the recovery position in adults and children with non-traumatic decreased levels of responsiveness changes outcomes in comparison with other positioning strategies. Methods: We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, medRxiv and Google Scholar from inception to 15 March 2021 for studies involving adults and children in an out-of-hospital, first aid setting who had reduced levels of responsiveness of non-traumatic aetiology but did not require resuscitative interventions. We used the ROBINS-I tool to assess risk of bias and GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Of 17,947 citations retrieved, three prospective observational studies and four case series were included. The prone and semi-recumbent positions were associated with a decreased rate of suspected aspiration pneumonia in acute poisoning. Use of the recovery position in paediatric patients with decreased levels of responsiveness was associated with a deceased admission rate and the prone position was the position most commonly associated with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. High risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of evidence limited our ability to perform pooled analyses. Conclusion: We identified a limited number of observational studies and case series comparing outcomes following use of the recovery position with outcomes when other patient positions were used. There was limited evidence to support or revise existing first aid guidance; however, greater emphasis on the initial assessment of responsiveness and need for CPR, as well as the detection and management of patient deterioration of a person identified with decreased responsiveness, is recommended.
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.