ReviewCureus2026
Multifactorial Determinants of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates remain 20-30% despite guideline advances, with emergency department (ED) resuscitation uniquely challenged by crowding, staff turnover, and diagnostic uncertainty. While technical CPR benchmarks are well-defined, consistent ED performance varies widely, suggesting system, human, and environmental factors significantly influence outcomes. Successful CPR outcomes depend not only on the quality and technique of resuscitation being performed but also on various contributing factors that concurrently influence the overall effectiveness of CPR in the patient. This narrative review synthesizes multifactorial determinants of CPR quality specific to ED practice. PRISMA 2020-guided narrative synthesis across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 2010-March 2026). Boolean search terms identified 1,247 records; two independent reviewers screened 1,189 titles/abstracts and assessed 189 full texts, excluding 159 (non-ED focus n = 102, pediatric/out-of-hospital n = 34, and non-English n = 23), yielding 52 studies categorized into five thematic domains. ED crowding independently reduces chest compression fraction (CCF) 11% and delays defibrillation 42 seconds (OR 1.4); leadership absence causes 2.1-fold longer shock delivery; procedural interruptions from intubation and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) average 12-19 seconds reducing CCF 8-17%; intraosseous access achieves 92% success vs. 59% IV failure; mechanical CPR devices improve CCF 92% vs. 78% manual but show no survival benefit; family presence adds 4.7-second pauses despite psychological benefit to 85% families. ED CPR quality reflects a complex interplay of system strain (CCF reductions 11-28%), human factors (leadership delays OR 2.1), technology integration challenges (POCUS pauses 12-19 seconds), procedural workflow, and patient complexity. Current quality improvement must extend beyond technical training to address these modifiable ED-specific barriers.
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.