ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Discrepancies between physician review and algorithmic detection of the zoll rescuenet post-cardiac arrest case review.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate measurement of CPR quality metrics is critical for improving cardiac arrest outcomes. Impedance based automated devices have demonstrated limitations. Zoll RescueNet CaseReview, rather, uses accelerometry to analyze chest compressions and automatically provides code feedback, including CPR pause number, length, and chest compression fraction. However, the reliability of these automated measurements compared to manual physician review remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study at a tertiary academic medical center, analyzing 212 in-hospital cardiac arrest cases recorded between July 1, 2023, and July 1, 2024. The study compared CPR metrics generated by the Zoll RescueNet CaseReview algorithm to manual physician review of raw defibrillator data, focusing on pause durations and chest compression fraction (CCF) using Bland-Altman plots. Results: Bland-Altman plots indicated overestimation of individual pause times (mean difference 4.00 s), max pause time per arrest (mean difference 24.57 s) total pause time per arrest (mean difference 0.73 min), and average number of pauses per arrest, with corresponding underestimation of CCF (mean difference 8.33%). Substantial variability was present for all variables with increased disagreement for longer pause times. Conclusion: The Zoll RescueNet CaseReview algorithm estimates longer CPR pause durations than manual physician review, thereby lowering the chest compression fraction estimate. These findings support manual review of raw data and improved algorithmic detection of compressions to ensure feedback to resuscitation teams is reliable.
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.