Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36407446›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Increased bystander intervention when volunteer responders attend out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Christian Gantzel Nielsen, Fredrik Folke, Linn Andelius, Carolina Malta Hansen, Ulla Væggemose, Erika Frischknecht Christensen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Mads Christian Tofte Gregers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Christian Gantzel NielsenCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Fredrik FolkeCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Linn AndeliusCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carolina Malta HansenCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ulla VæggemoseDepartment of Research and Development, Prehospital Emergency Medical Services, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Erika Frischknecht ChristensenCentre for Prehospital and Emergency Research, Department of Emergency Medicine and Trauma Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Christian Torp-PedersenDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital - North Zealand, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annette Kjær ErsbøllCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads Christian Tofte GregersCopenhagen Emergency Medical Services, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DKGentofte Hospital · DKNorth Denmark Region · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The primary aim was to investigate the association between alarm acceptance compared to no-acceptance by volunteer responders, bystander intervention, and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study included all suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) with activation of volunteer responders in the Capital Region of Denmark (1 November 2018 to 14 May 2019), the Central Denmark Region (1 November 2018 to 31 December 2020), and the Northern Denmark Region (14 February 2020 to 31 December 2020). All OHCAs unwitnessed by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were analyzed on the basis on alarm acceptance and arrival before EMS. The primary outcomes were bystander cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), bystander defibrillation and secondary outcome was 30-day survival. A questionnaire sent to all volunteer responders was used with respect to their arrival status. Results: We identified 1,877 OHCAs with volunteer responder activation eligible for inclusion and 1,725 (91.9%) of these had at least one volunteer responder accepting the alarm (accepted). Of these, 1,355 (79%) reported arrival status whereof 883 (65%) arrived before EMS. When volunteer responders accepted the alarm and arrived before EMS, we found increased proportions and adjusted odds ratio for bystander CPR {94 vs. 83%, 4.31 [95% CI (2.43-7.67)] and bystander defibrillation [13 vs. 9%, 3.16 (1.60-6.25)]} compared to cases where no volunteer responders accepted the alarm. Conclusion: We observed a fourfold increased odds ratio for bystander CPR and a threefold increased odds ratio for bystander defibrillation when volunteer responders accepted the alarm and arrived before EMS.

Indexed as

bystander interventionscardiopulmonary resuscitationdefibrillationout-of-hospital cardiac arrestvolunteer responders

Identifiers

PMID36407446
PMCPMC9672473
OpenAlexW4308333139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.