ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes following EMS resuscitation protocol revision during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study.
Article 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We aimed to evaluate the association between emergency medical service (EMS) protocols with enhanced infection control precautions against COVID-19 and the outcomes of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), as well as various EMS-related time intervals, in Japan. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study of OHCAs in Kobe, Japan, between 2016 and 2023. In May 2020, the Japanese resuscitation protocols for EMS were revised in accordance with the guidance of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The outcomes of interest were favourable neurological outcomes and several time metrics related to EMS activities. We evaluated changes in outcomes before and after the protocol revision using segmented regression for interrupted time-series analyses. Results: A total of 10,126 patients were enrolled during the period. The proportion of favourable neurological outcomes decreased after the protocol revision: the change in the intercept was -3.4 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], -5.2 % to -1.7 %) and in the trend was 0.01 % (95 % CI, -0.02 % to 0.04 %). Delays were observed in airway management completion (186 s [95 % CI, 131 to 241] for the intercept and 6.13 s [95 % CI, 4.22 to 8.03] for the trend) and establishment of intravenous access (99 s [95 % CI, 55 to 143] for the intercept and 3.93 s [95 % CI, 2.84 to 5.02] for the trend). Conclusion: OHCA outcomes worsened after the protocol revision, with delays in several key EMS interventions. When encountering future pandemics, resuscitation protocols should be designed to balance infection control and the quality of advanced life support.
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.