ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Validity of out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest algorithms in the Danish National Patient Registry.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Cardiac arrest is registered in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) with the International Classification of Diseases 10 Methods: From Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, we sampled patients with a primary or secondary cardiac arrest discharge diagnosis during 2019-2023. The algorithm categorized these patients as OHCA if they (1) only had a single department course during their hospitalization or (2) had multiple department courses during their hospitalization but were discharged with a cardiac arrest diagnosis from the first department course. The algorithm categorized the remaining patients as IHCA. We randomly sampled 200 patients with algorithm-based OHCA ( Results: Cardiac arrest was confirmed in 192 of 200 cases, yielding a PPV for cardiac arrest overall of 96% (95% CI: 92-98%). The PPV was 87% (95% CI: 79-92%) for OHCA and 61% (95% CI: 51-70%) for IHCA. The results were robust in age and sex strata. Conclusions: The validity of a cardiac arrest diagnosis in the DNPR was overall high. The algorithm to distinguish cardiac arrest subtypes showed a high PPV for OHCA but a poor PPV for IHCA.
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.