Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36238582›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2022

Calcium use during cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Eduardo Messias Hirano Padrao, Brian Bustos, Ashwin Mahesh, Monaliza de Almeida Castro, Ravneet Randhawa, Christopher John Dipollina, Rhanderson Cardoso, Prashant Grover, Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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.

Eduardo Messias Hirano PadraoDepartment of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Brian BustosDepartment of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Ashwin MaheshDepartment of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Monaliza de Almeida CastroUniversidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ravneet RandhawaDepartment of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Christopher John DipollinaDepartment of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, USA.
Rhanderson CardosoDivision of Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Prashant GroverPulmonary and Critical Care Department, Saint Francis Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro BesenDepartment of Medicine, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Calcium use during cardiac arrest has conflicting results in terms of efficacy. Therefore, we performed a systematic review evaluating the role of calcium administration in cardiac arrest. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE for studies comparing calcium administration versus no calcium administration during cardiac arrest. The study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022316641) adhering to PRISMA guideline recommendations. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) or survival at one hour. The secondary outcomes included survival to discharge or at 30 days, and favorable neurologic outcomes at 30 and 90 days. We planned to perform a random-effects meta-analysis of low risk of bias studies. We evaluated risk of bias with RoB-2 and ROBINS-I. Results: We identified 1,921 articles and included ten studies with 2509 patients. We were not able to perform a meta-analysis with low-risk of bias studies as only one study was found to be at low-risk of bias. However, for the primary outcome, the three RCTs included showed no benefit with calcium administration during cardiac arrest for ROSC. For the secondary outcomes, based on the most recent study and lower risk of bias, there was a neutral effect for survival to discharge or at 30 days and neurologic outcomes at 30 days. However, there was unfavorable neurologic outcomes at 90 days. Conclusion: Based on our results, calcium administration in cardiac arrests shows no benefit and can cause harm. Further studies on this matter are likely not advisable.

Indexed as

Advanced Cardiac Life SupportCalciumCardiac arrestResuscitation

Identifiers

PMID36238582
PMCPMC9550532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.