ArticleScientific reports2024
Optimal duration and timing of basic-life-support-only intervention for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urban-rural disparities in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: a nationwide Hungarian study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- BLS competency of doctors and nurses serving during the war in Gaza: insights from a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To elucidate the relationship between the interval from cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiation to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and neurologically favourable 1-month survival in order to determine the appropriate duration of basic life support (BLS) without advanced interventions. This population-based cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years with 9132 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac origin who were bystander-witnessed and had achieved ROSC between 2018 and 2020. Patients were classified into two groups based on the resuscitation methods as the "BLS-only" and the "BLS with administered epinephrine (BLS-AE)" groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis indicated that administering BLS for 9 min yielded the best neurologically outcome for patients with a shockable rhythm [sensitivity, 0.42; specificity, 0.27; area under the ROC curve (AUC), 0.60] in the BLS-only group. Contrastingly, for patients with a non-shockable rhythm, performing BLS for 6 min yielded the best neurologically outcome (sensitivity, 0.65; specificity, 0.43; AUC, 0.63). After propensity score matching, multivariate analysis revealed that BLS-only resuscitation [6.44 (5.34-7.77)] was associated with neurologically favourable 1-month survival. This retrospective study revealed that BLS-only intervention had a significant impact in the initial minutes following CPR initiation. Nevertheless, its effectiveness markedly declined thereafter. The optimal duration for effective BLS-only intervention varied depending on the patient's initial rhythm. Consequently, advanced interventions should be administered within the first few minutes to counteract the diminishing effectiveness of BLS-only intervention.
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.