ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Current practice in pediatric post-cardiac arrest care: a national survey among Italian pediatric intensivists.
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.
- Data to decisions in pediatric post-cardiac arrest care using coding and large language models.Resuscitation plus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Pediatric post-cardiac arrest care (PCAC) is an evolving science with many uncertainties leading to many variations in practice. This study aimed to investigate the current practice in PCAC care across Italian paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), interviewing a cohort of pediatric intensivists. Methods: An electronic survey with 69 questions was distributed to 54 physicians from 23 PICUs in Italy. The survey covered various domains of PCAC care, including hemodynamics, oxygenation and ventilation, sedation, seizure and temperature control, infection treatment, glycemic control, transfusion practice, neuroprognostication, post-CA recovery and rehabilitation, organisation and local protocols. Results: Twenty-eight out of 54 invited physicians (51%) completed the survey, accounting for 82% of the participating PICUs. Up to 80% reported no specific PCAC protocol in their PICU. Half of the respondents suggested specific recommendations for patients of lower ages, particularly infants. Significant variability was observed in hemodynamic monitoring and support; 45% did not have a specific hemodynamic target, while 41% aimed for a systolic arterial pressure above the 50th age-specific percentile. Seventy-one percent lacked a protocol for target temperature management (TTM), with significant variability in practice. Sixty-four percent did not have a scheduled follow-up program for survivors after hospital discharge. A rehabilitation program for survivors and psychological support for patients and their families were available in half of the instances. Neuroprotective strategies, prognostication, and hemodynamic management were the top PCAC research priorities reported. Conclusion: The study revealed significant variability in PCAC care practices among pediatric intensivists. The majority of surveyed practitioners evidenced the limits of current PCAC evidence, potentially advocating the need for further research. The top three areas recognised as PCAC research priorities include hemodynamic optimisation, neuroprotective therapies and neuroprognostication.
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.