ArticleResuscitation2022
Evaluating novel methods of outcome assessment following cardiac arrest.
Article in Resuscitation, 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.
- Accuracy and Equity of the End-of-Life Care Index in Predicting 1-Year Mortality.JAMA network open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe compared novel methods of long-term follow-up after resuscitation from cardiac arrest to a query of the National Death Index (NDI). We hypothesized use of the electronic health record (EHR), and internet-based sources would have high sensitivity for identifying decedents identified by the NDI.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study including patients treated after cardiac arrest at a single academic center from 2010 to 2018. We evaluated two novel methods to ascertain long-term survival and modified Rankin Scale (mRS): 1) a structured chart review of our health system's EHR; and 2) an internet-based search of: a) local newspapers, b) Ancestry.com, c) Facebook, d) Twitter, e) Instagram, and f) Google. If a patient was not reported deceased by any source, we considered them to be alive. We compared results of these novel methods to the NDI to calculate sensitivity. We queried the NDI for 200 in-hospital decedents to evaluate sensitivity against a true criterion standard.
resultsWe included 1,097 patients, 897 (82%) alive at discharge and 200 known decedents (18%). NDI identified 197/200 (99%) of known decedents. The EHR and local newspapers had highest sensitivity compared to the NDI (87% and 86% sensitivity, respectively). Online sources identified 10 likely decedents not identified by the NDI. Functional status estimated from EHR, and internet sources at follow up agreed in 38% of alive patients.
conclusionsNovel methods of outcome assessment are an alternative to NDI for determining patients' vital status. These methods are less reliable for estimating functional status.
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.