ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Intramuscular epinephrine in cardiac arrest: A systematic review.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Epinephrine administered by intravenous (IV) or intraosseous (IO) route is the first-line medication for cardiac arrest and is associated with improved survival. Intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is currently not indicated for cardiac arrest but may be faster and easier to administer and may result in improved patient outcomes. Aim: To evaluate the evidence for IM epinephrine compared to IV or IO epinephrine in, and animals with cardiac arrest. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021259729). Databases were searched for studies comparing IV, IO, and IM epinephrine administration in cardiac arrest up to June 2, 2025. Studies in children, adults, and animals with cardiac arrest were included. Studies involving neonates and unpublished studies (such as conference abstracts and trial protocols) were excluded. Two investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data and assessed bias of individual studies using the ROBINS-I and OHAT tools. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Results: One observational adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) study, five animal studies, and one narrative review were included. For all studies, the risk of bias was moderate and certainty of evidence was low. In the one human before-and-after study of 1405 adults with OHCA, IM epinephrine was associated with improved survival (11.0 % vs 7.0 %; aOR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.10-2.71) and neurologically favourable survival (9.8 % vs 6.2 %; aOR, 1.72, 95 % CI 1.07-2.76) compared to IV/IO epinephrine. Animal studies in both adults and children had heterogeneous methods and results were mixed. Conclusion: A limited number of studies have compared IM epinephrine to IV/IO or no epinephrine in cardiac arrest, including one human trial which showed improved neurological survival for IM epinephrine. Further studies, particularly randomized controlled trials in humans, to explore IM epinephrine for cardiac arrest are justified.
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.