ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2025
Safety and Efficacy of Intra-Osseous versus Intravenous Vascular Access for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 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: The immediate administration of drugs and fluids is critical for successful resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Vascular access selection plays a pivotal role in ensuring timely delivery of therapeutic interventions during OHCA management. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) access in OHCA management. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMbase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify studies published up to February 20th, 2025, evaluating IO and IV access in OHCA patients. The outcomes of interest included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival from hospital admission to discharge, neurological outcome, comorbidities, and access time. Results: Twenty-three studies, comprising 48945 cases of IO access and 188966 cases of IV access for OHCA management, were included. Overall, the rate of favorable neurological outcome was similar between patients with IO and IV access (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 1.45, I Conclusion: In OHCA management, IO access may be associated with less favorable outcomes in terms of survival, neurological function, and ROSC compared to IV access. Further research is needed to address limitations and provide more robust evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of intraosseous and intravenous access in this clinical setting.
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.