ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2025
Is it beneficial to allow the patient's family to attend cardiac resuscitation: Different cultural perspectives? A scoping review.
Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological Outcomes of Family Members Related to a Loved One's Resuscitation in the Emergency Department: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Nurses' perceptions of family presence during resuscitation/CPR in emergency departments in Palestine: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Exploring emergency nurses' attitudes toward family presence during resuscitation: a cross-sectional study in Southwest China.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is a controversial issue that remains unresolved in contemporary practice. Although there are many research studies on FPDR and several published statements and guidelines supporting FPDR by international organizations, no conclusive position guides clinicians in making a decision. A scoping review was conducted to discuss the different healthcare professionals (HCPs) and cultural perspectives toward family presence during CPR is conducted. Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we screened 797 studies published between 2000 and 2022 from the databases including Springer Link, MEDLINE, Pro-Quest Central, CINAHL Plus, and Google Scholar. All articles were filtered using inclusion criteria to eliminate redundant, irrelevant, and unnecessary content. Results: A total of 34 studies that fulfill the eligibility criteria reported that there are multiple perspectives from HCPs and families about FPDR. HCPs felt that their performance had improved during resuscitation and received family support in breaking the bad news of death. Family relatives who attended cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) had less stress, less anxiety, more positive grieving behavior, and enhanced family members' decision-making. Contrastingly, some HCPs were against FPDR because they were concerned about the family's misinterpretation of resuscitation activities, psychological trauma to the family members, increased stress levels among staff, and worry about an unexpected response from the distressed family. Conclusions: It is important to consider the culture and awareness of families when deciding on FPDR. It is the responsibility of HCPs to assess family members' willingness and the benefits they attain from attending CPR. The decision should be based on the given situation, cultural context and beliefs, and current policy to guide practice.
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.