ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2025
Cardiac Arrest: Can Technology Be the Solution?
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. 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.
- IntraVenous vs IntraOsseous access in Cardiac Arrest: the omitted economic question (IVOCA study).Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) mortality remains alarmingly high in most countries. The majority of pharmacological attempts to improve outcomes have failed. Randomized trials have shown limited survival benefits with vasopressin, fibrinolysis, amiodarone, or lidocaine. Even the benefits of adrenaline remain a matter of debate. In this context, relying on technology may seem appealing. However, technological strategies have also yielded disappointing results. This is exemplified by automated external chest compression devices. When first introduced, theoretical models, animal studies, and early clinical trials suggested they could improve survival. Yet, randomized trials failed to confirm this benefit. Similarly, to date, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), therapeutic hypothermia, and primary angioplasty have demonstrated inconsistent survival advantage. Other technological innovations continue to be explored, such as artificial intelligence to improve the diagnosis of cardiac arrest during emergency calls, mobile applications to dispatch citizen responders to patients in cardiac arrest, geolocation of defibrillators, and even the delivery of defibrillators via drones. Nevertheless, it is clear that the focus and investment should prioritize the initial links in the chain of survival: early alerting, chest compressions, and defibrillation. Significant improvements in these critical steps can be achieved through the education of children. Modern technological tools must be leveraged to enhance this training by incorporating gamification and democratizing access to education. These strategies hold the potential to fundamentally improve the management of cardiac arrest.
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.