ArticleCureus2025
Treatment Variation in In-Hospital Management of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Clinicians follow clinical practice guidelines to choose in-hospital treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. Yet, treatment practice variations may still exist for recommended interventions. In this study, we aimed to examine variations in guideline-recommended in-hospital treatments for OHCA. Methods and findings This nationwide cohort study utilized the Japan Association for Acute Medicine OHCA (JAAM-OHCA) registry data from 2014 to 2019. We focused on four in-hospital OHCA treatments: epinephrine administration, amiodarone administration, targeted temperature management (TTM), and coronary angiography (CAG). We included adult patients (≥18 years old) with cardiogenic etiology undergoing in-hospital resuscitation, for whom each treatment was indicated. We calculated the coefficient of variation (CV) to gauge treatment variation and used funnel plots of standardized treatment ratios to detect outlier hospitals with significantly different practices. Results Of the 57,754 patients in the registry, we included 26,420 in the epinephrine cohort, 1,826 in the amiodarone cohort, 6,780 in the TTM cohort, and 6,823 in the CAG cohort. Epinephrine exhibited the slightest variation (unadjusted CV 16.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14.7 to 19.9; adjusted CV 15.0%, 95% CI 13.0 to 17.0). The other three in-hospital treatments had CVs ranging between 40% and 50%. Funnel plots identified outlier hospitals, accounting for six (6.6%) in the epinephrine cohort, nine (11%) in the amiodarone cohort, nine (10%) in the TTM cohort, and nine (9.9%) in the CAG cohort. Conclusions Epinephrine use displayed smaller practice variation than the other treatments. However, some outlier hospitals were identified even for epinephrine. This underscores the inadequacy of developing stringent guidelines and highlights the vital need for active implementation monitoring.
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.