ArticleCureus2025
Validation of the Termination of Resuscitation Rules in Detroit.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background and objective The termination of resuscitation (TOR) criteria - which recommends termination when a non-traumatic arrest in an adult is unwitnessed by emergency medical services (EMS), no shocks are administered, and no return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) occurs - guide physicians in determining the viability of continuing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and transporting patients to the hospital. We examined the level of compliance with the current basic life support (BLS) TOR rule and assessed alternative sets of rules to retrospectively derive improved TOR guidelines for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in Detroit. Methods This was a retrospective study involving non-traumatic OHCA cases in Detroit from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, which spans the time frame before and after the BLS TOR rule was officially implemented (June 1, 2018). Data were extracted from the Detroit Cardiac Arrest Registry (DCAR). Patients younger than 18 years of age, those with arrests of traumatic origin, or those with no resuscitation attempted were excluded. Results A total of 1,306 individuals were included in our analysis: 656 OHCA cases before the implementation of the BLS TOR rule in Detroit and 650 OHCA after the implementation. BLS TOR criteria were applied to the pre-TOR implementation data with a resulting specificity of 79% (95% CI: 50.7-80.8) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.3% (95% CI: 95.5-98.6). Survival to hospital discharge when termination was recommended was projected at 2.9% (13/444). The overall transportation rate was 85% (559/656). Post-TOR implementation, specificity was 88.9% (95% CI: 78.6-99.1) and PPV was 99.1% (95% CI: 98.3-99.9). Survival to hospital discharge was 0.88% (4/453) with a 69% (451/650) overall transportation rate. Post-hoc addition of age or EMS time to the patient side increased transportation rates to 81% (529/650) and 88% (571/650), respectively, and decreased false positive terminations to 0.84% (2/237) and 0% (0/148), respectively. Conclusions Overall survival and futile transportation rates decreased when TOR was applied since the implementation of the BLS TOR rule in Detroit. The addition of EMS time to the patient side or patient age to current TOR guidelines suggested improved performance. Although the additional criteria resulted in higher transportation rates, these factors may be useful for physicians to consider when deciding to transport patients. However, further derivation and validation are needed to create optimal TOR guidelines.
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.