ArticleResuscitation plus2024
How do survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest perceive their health compared to the norm population? A nationwide registry study from Norway.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2025: post-resuscitation care.Intensive care medicine · 2025Guideline
- Long-term outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors in New Zealand: A prospective, longitudinal cohort study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Impaired Pre-Critical Illness Quality of Life in Elderly ICU Patients.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Observational
- Psychometric evaluation of EQ-5D-5L in OHCA survivors from the TTM2 trial: aResuscitation plus · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Self-perceived health status data is usually collected using patient-reported outcome measures. Information from the patients' perspective is one of the important components in planning person-centred care. The study aimed to compare EQ-5D-5L in survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with data for Norwegian population controls. Secondary aim included comparing characteristics of respondents and non-respondents from the OHCA population. Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, 714 OHCA survivors received an electronic EQ-5D-5L questionnaire 3-6 months following OHCA. EQ-5D-5L assesses for five dimensions of health (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) with five-point descriptive scales and overall health on a visual analogue scale from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) (EQ VAS). Results are used to calculate the EQ index ranging from -0.59 (worst) to 1 (best). Patient responses were matched for age and sex with existing data from controls, collected through a postal survey (response rate 26%), and compared with Chi-square tests or t-tests as appropriate. Results: Of 784 OHCA survivors, 714 received the EQ-5D-5L, and 445 (62%) responded. Respondents had higher rates of shockable first rhythm and better cerebral performance category scores than the non-respondents. OHCA survivors reported poorer health compared to controls as assessed by EQ-5D-5L dimensions, the EQ index (0.76 ± 0.24 vs 0.82 ± 0.18), and EQ VAS (69 ± 21 vs 79 ± 17), except for the pain/discomfort dimension. Conclusions: Norwegian OHCA survivors reported poorer health than the general population as assessed by the EQ-5D-5L. PROMs use in this population can be used to inform follow-up and health care delivery.
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.