ArticleResuscitation plus2023
External validation of GO-FAR 2 calculator for outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest with comparison to GO-FAR and trial of expanded applications.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation Score and Clinical Frailty Scale for Estimating Long-Term Mortality: An Ancillary Study of the CLEAR Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Validation and comparison of two prearrest prediction scores for in-hospital cardiac arrest survival.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Validating the GO-FAR score: predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes in the Middle East.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Externally validate the GO-FAR 2 tool for predicting survival with good neurologic function after in-hospital cardiac arrest with comparison to the original GO-FAR tool. Additionally, we collected qualitative descriptors and performed exploratory analyses with various levels of neurologic function and discharge destination. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent in-hospital resuscitation after cardiac arrest during the calendar years 2016-2019 in our institution ( Results: The GO-FAR 2 score accurately predicted outcomes in our study population with a c-statistic of 0.625. The original GO-FAR score also had accurate calibration with a stronger c-statistic of 0.726. The GO-FAR score had decreased predictive value for lesser levels of neurologic function (c-statistic 0.56 for alive at discharge) and discharge destination (0.69). Descriptors of functional status by CPC score were collected. Conclusion: Our findings support the validity of the GO-FAR and GO-FAR 2 tools as published, but the c-statistics suggest modest predictive discrimination. We include functional descriptors of CPC outcomes to aid clinicians in using these tools. We propose that information about expected outcomes could be valuable in shared decision-making conversations.
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.