ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Comments on "The effects of norepinephrine in shockable cardiac arrest, a scoping review".
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reply to: comments on "The effects of norepinephrine in shockable cardiac arrest, a scoping review".Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Norepinephrine in shockable cardiac arrest is a controversial topic. The review from Bouman et al. relies heavily on historical animal studies with limited human data, thus, their conclusion may not be clinically applicable. Current available data demonstrates significant heterogeneity, such as norepinephrine dosing and administration routes. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis suggests no clear survival or neurologic benefit of norepinephrine over epinephrine. The assertions about neurologic outcomes, which were based on animal hemodynamics, were not supported by sufficient human evidence in the recent meta-analysis. Overall, the authors' conclusions may be too much of an overreach, due to given the variability and limitations of the included studies, warranting cautious interpretation.
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.