ArticlePrehospital emergency care2026
Inter-Rater Reliability and Acceptability of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Opioid-Associated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.
Article in Prehospital emergency care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Naloxone administration associated with improved survival in PEA out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.Resuscitation · 2026Article
- Validation of the naloxone cardiac arrest decision instrument for identifying opioid-associated cardiac arrests.Resuscitation · 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
Abstract
objectivesOne-in-six cases of atraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in North America are thought to be precipitated by opioid overdose, but many of these cases are not obvious and there is no gold standard used by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel to identify opioid-associated (OA)-OHCA. The NAloxone Cardiac ARrest Decision Instrument (NACARDI) was developed and validated to identify potential OA-OHCA, however it has not yet been used in the field. We sought to prospectively assess the inter-rater reliability and acceptability of NACARDI in real-world OHCA.
methodsEmergency medical service clinicians evaluated the NACARDI criteria during acute resuscitations of patients with OHCA in San Francisco between September 2022-February 2024. The NACARDI rule utilized in this study consisted of two criteria: patient age <60 years and unwitnessed cardiac arrest. Clinicians completed a short survey that included free-text questions, multiple choice question, and Likert-type scales rating NACARDI's ease of use, describing when during the resuscitation they were able to assess NACARDI, and identifying potential barriers. In cases where two clinicians completed NARCADI assessments for a single OHCA case, we calculated a kappa coefficient of agreement.
resultsEmergency medical service clinicians evaluated 149 cases of OHCA and completed 198 surveys - 100 (67.1%) cases had one survey response and 49 (32.9%) had survey responses from two EMS personnel. Clinicians were able to ascertain NACARDI criteria "prior to or during the first cardiac rhythm check" in 80.3% of cases. NACARDI was reported as "easy to use" by 83.3% of respondents. The overall Kappa coefficient for NACARDI was 0.73 (95%CI 0.51-0.95). The three most common reasons why NACARDI criteria were deemed difficult to ascertain were chaotic scene, language barrier, and unreliable bystander accounts.
conclusionsThere was reasonable agreement in how NACARDI was interpreted for OHCA cases and the majority of surveyed EMS clinicians found NACARDI easy to use. These findings suggest that NACARDI can be reliably and easily used by EMS clinicians during acute OHCA resuscitations to identify OA-OHCA patients, potentially informing inclusion criteria for future research studies and guiding targeted interventions for this patient population.
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.