ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of the Effects of Lidocaine and Amiodarone on Patients With Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the impact of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcomes following cardiac arrest. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as cohort and cross-sectional trials was undertaken, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Potential relevant studies were searched in databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from the beginning of databases to February 15, 2024. Outcomes assessed in this study were survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission or 24 hours, favorable neurological outcomes, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). A total of seven studies (five observational and two RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 19,081 patients with cardiac arrest. Pooled analysis showed no difference between amiodarone and lidocaine in terms of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio (OR): 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75 to 1.04), ROSC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.05, p-value: 0.25), favorable neurological outcomes (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.17, p-value: 0.38), and survival to 24 hours (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.21, p-value: 0.31). While lidocaine demonstrated a slight survival advantage, the differences were statistically insignificant. Similarly, no significant variations were observed in ROSC incidence, neurological outcomes, or survival at 24 hours. These findings align with current guidelines but underscore the necessity for further rigorous RCTs to provide conclusive recommendations.
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.