ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Evaluation of the optimal timing for advanced airway management for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective observational study from a multicenter registry.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early Advanced Airway Management and Clinical Outcomes in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Nationwide Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We aimed to investigate the appropriate timing for advanced airway management (AAM) in witnessed adult non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by adjusting for resuscitation time bias and limiting the analysis to witnessed OHCA. Methods: This retrospective observational study used a multicentre OHCA registry involving 99 participating hospitals in Japan and included adult patients with witnessed non-traumatic OHCA who underwent AAM during resuscitation. The primary and secondary outcomes were favourable 30-day neurological outcomes and survival, respectively. The time from emergency medical service contact to AAM was categorised as follows: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26-30 min. In each group, we calculated the time-dependent propensity score using a Fine-Gray regression model. After propensity score matching, we used a generalised estimating equation (GEE). Results: A total of 16,448 patients who underwent AAM were matched with patients at risk of requiring AAM. AAM was associated with favourable 30-day neurological outcomes when performed at 6-10 and 16-20 min with RRs (95% CIs) of 1.41 (1.12-1.78), but not at 16-20 min (0.74 [0.56-0.99]), respectively. AAM was associated with improved 30-day survival at 1-5 and 6-10 min (1.22 [1.05-1.41], 1.33 [1.16-1.54], respectively), but not at 16-20 min (0.78 [0.62-0.97]. Conclusions: Performing AAM within 10 min was associated with improved outcomes compared with those at risk of receiving AAM. However, the results were not consistent across all groups, therefore, careful interpretation is required.
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.