ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Comparison of return of spontaneous circulation prediction scores in patients with cardiac arrest during ambulance transport.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac arrest during ambulance transport is a complex situation that has features of both in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) but lacks a clear classification. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of prehospital and in-hospital ROSC prediction tools in patients experiencing cardiac arrest during ambulance transport.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted with patients experiencing cardiac arrest during transport. Demographic, clinical, and treatment data were collected, including pre-arrest consciousness, arrest rhythm, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration. Four ROSC prediction scores (Prehospital-ROSC, the ROSC after cardiac arrest, Utstein-Based ROSC, and The Cardiac Arrest Survival Post-Resuscitation In-Hospital scores) were used to assess the patients. The AUROCs of the scores were compared to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy.
resultsPatients were categorized into two groups based on ROSC: No-ROSC (n = 248, 75.2%) and ROSC (n = 82, 24.8%). The ROSC group had significantly more shockable rhythms (81.7% vs. 22.2%, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of cardiac etiology (p = 0.015) compared to the No-ROSC group. The time for the ambulance to reach the patient did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.140), but the time spent in the ambulance before arrest was significantly shorter in the ROSC group (p = 0.026). The prehospital-ROSC score had the highest diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.791), followed by The ROSC after cardiac arrest score (0.754) and The Utstein-Based ROSC score (0.716). The Cardiac Arrest Survival Post-Resuscitation In-Hospital score had the lowest performance (0.658). Prehospital-ROSC score outperformed the Utstein-Based ROSC score (p = 0.005), and the Cardiac Arrest Survival Post-Resuscitation In-Hospital score was significantly lower than both ROSC after cardiac arrest score (p = 0.031) and the prehospital-ROSC score (p < 0.001).
conclusionPrehospital-ROSC score was the most accurate predictor of ROSC in patients experiencing cardiac arrest during ambulance transport, while the Cardiac Arrest Survival Post-Resuscitation In-Hospital score demonstrated lower predictive accuracy.
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.