ArticleJAMA network open2025
Intraosseous vs Intravenous Access for Epinephrine in Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: While epinephrine is commonly administered in children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) via an intraosseous (IO) or intravenous (IV) route, the optimal route of epinephrine delivery is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between the route of epinephrine administration (IO or IV) and patient outcomes after pediatric OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with nontraumatic OHCA treated by emergency medical services who received prehospital epinephrine either via an IO or IV route. Patients were included in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epidemiologic Registry, a prospective OHCA registry at 10 sites in the US and Canada from April 2011 to June 2015. Data analysis was performed from May 2024 to April 2025. Exposure: Epinephrine administration route: IO or IV route. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) before hospital arrival. Propensity scores were calculated and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with stabilized weights to control imbalances in measured patient demographics, cardiac arrest characteristics, and bystander and prehospital interventions. Results: Of 739 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 1 [0-11] years), 449 (60.8%) were male. Epinephrine was administered via an IO route for 535 (72.4%) and via an IV route for 204 (27.6%) patients. In the IPTW pseudopopulation (740 weighted cases), there was no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge (IO epinephrine: 28 of 528 patients [5.3%] vs IV epinephrine: 12 of 212 patients [5.7%]; risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41-2.07) or prehospital ROSC (IO epinephrine: 76 of 528 patients [14.4%] vs IV epinephrine: 46 of 212 patients [21.7%]; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03) between the IO and IV epinephrine groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients with OHCA in the US and Canada, the route of epinephrine administration was not associated with survival to hospital discharge or prehospital ROSC. This may support the practice of administering epinephrine via IO or IV route.
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.