ArticleBritish paramedic journal2026
Development of a national consensus guideline for termination of resuscitation in the out-of-hospital environment.
Article in British paramedic journal, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ambulance services in England attempted resuscitation in over 34,400 cases in 2022. Of these, 58% had the resuscitation attempt terminated at the scene and only 7.8% survived to hospital discharge. The decision to stop resuscitation is informed by a national guideline that is over 20 years old. This study describes the development of a revised termination of resuscitation (TOR) guideline. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study comprising a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of TOR rules, modelling of multiple TOR rules using data from the Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes registry, a survey of ambulance services including a review of national policy documents, qualitative interviews with ambulance and emergency department (ED) clinicians, plus interviews with relatives of patients who did not survive a pre-hospital resuscitation attempt. These work packages informed a national consensus meeting with a wide range of stakeholders, employing nominal group techniques, to draft a revised TOR guideline. Results: The systematic review identified very low-certainty evidence from 43 studies, indicating that TOR rules are unlikely to be suitable for implementation in the UK. When we modelled the performance of TOR rules, the three best performing were the Marsden, KOCARC 1 and GOTO1 TOR rules. We identified considerable variation in practice across UK ambulance services; however, there was consistency across services with respect to perceived risks. Paramedics experienced tension when they felt that guidelines restricted them from acting in the patient's best interests. ED staff felt that paramedics should be empowered to stop resuscitation in some cases. Relatives felt that paramedics did a good job and that they had information that was useful for paramedics. Multiple stakeholders participated in a consensus conference to develop a revised TOR guideline. Conclusion: We iteratively derived updated TOR and verification of death guidelines.
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.