ArticleCardiology and cardiovascular medicine2022
Staying Current: Developing Just-in-time Evidence-Based Learning Objectives for a Maternal Cardiac Arrest Simulation Curriculum.
Article in Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Resuscitation of traumatic maternal cardiac arrest: A case report and summary of recommendations from Obstetric Life Support™.Trauma case reports · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Our objective was to review the latest evidence on resuscitation care for maternal cardiac arrest (MCA) and gain expert consensus on best practices to inform an evidence-based curriculum. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders in MCA to develop an evidence-based simulation training, Obstetric Life Support™ (OBLS). To inform the learning objectives, we used a novel three-step process to achieve consensus on best practices for maternal resuscitation. First, we reaffirmed the evidence process on an existing MCA guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Next, via systematic review, we evaluated the latest evidence on MCA and identified emerging topics since the publication of the MCA guideline. Finally, we applied a modified Research and Development (RAND) technique to gain consensus on emerging topics to include as additional just-in-time best practices. Results: The AGREE II survey results demonstrated unanimous consensus on reaffirmation of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) MCA guideline for inclusion into the OBLS curriculum. A systematic review with deduplication resulted in 11,871 articles for review. After categorizing and synthesizing the relevant literature, we presented twelve additional best practices to the expert panel using a modified RAND technique. Upon completion, the 2015 AHA statement and nine additional just-in-time best practices were affirmed to inform the OBLS curriculum. Conclusions: A novel three-step process including reaffirmation of evidence process, systematic review, and a modified RAND technique resulted in unanimous consensus from experts in MCA resuscitation on existing and new just-in-time best practices to inform the learning objectives for an evidence-based curriculum.
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.