ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Misconceptions and do-not-resuscitate preferences of healthcare professionals commonly involved in cardiopulmonary resuscitations: A national survey.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative Code Status Discussions in Surgical Practice: Results from a National Survey Among Swiss Surgeons.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Association between early arterial pH, base excess and lactate and 24-h mortality and neurological outcomes after cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a translational study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Challenges in perioperative code status management: a national survey among Swiss anaesthetists.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- [Changes in treatment goals and palliative care in the intensive care unit-when and how?]Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Review
- The Prognosis After Cardiac Arrest: Evidence on the Short- and Long-Term Course.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To assess the DNR preferences of critical care-, anesthesia- and emergency medicine practitioners, to identify factors influencing decision-making, and to raise awareness for misconceptions concerning CPR outcomes. Methods: A nationwide multicenter survey was conducted in Switzerland confronting healthcare professionals with a case vignette of an adult patient with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The primary outcome was the rate of DNR Code Status vs. CPR Code Status when taking the perspective from a clinical case vignette of a 70-year-old patient. Secondary outcomes were participants' personal preferences for DNR and estimates of survival with good neurological outcome after in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Results: Within 1803 healthcare professionals, DNR code status was preferred in 85% ( Conclusions: The estimation of outcomes following cardiac arrest and personal living conditions are pivotal factors influencing code status preferences in healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals should be aware of cardiac arrest prognosis and potential implications of personal preferences when engaging in code status- and end-of-life discussions with patients and their relatives.
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.