ReviewIntensive care medicine experimental2026
Timing of hypothermic temperature control does not affect neurological outcomes after cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Intensive care medicine experimental, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with a low rate of favourable neurological recovery, estimated at 8%. Lowering the cerebral metabolic rate with hypothermic temperature control is hypothesized to improve this outcome. Given the importance of temperature control after cardiac arrest, we investigated whether initiating early hypothermic temperature control in the prehospital setting could further enhance neurological recovery. A pre-registered systematic search (PROSPERO: CRD42024601051) was run in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central on November 3, 2024 (updated on March 30, 2026) to identify randomised controlled trials that compare prehospital vs. in-hospital initiation of hypothermic temperature control of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The Cochrane Handbook was followed for data extraction and synthesis. The RoB 2 tool was used for risk of bias assessment. The meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. A total of 7117 articles were screened, and 7 studies including 3288 patients were included in the analysis. The intervention group achieved target temperature of 33 °C significantly earlier (MD: -97.27 min; 95% CI: -139.46 to -55.08; p = 0.010). In the intervention group, no significant difference was observed in the odds for favourable neurological outcome (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22, p = 0.855). The rate of recurrent cardiac arrest in the intervention group was significantly higher than in the control group (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.20-1.47; p = 0.009) and the odds for pulmonary oedema were also significantly higher (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.24-2.23; p = 0.001). The results show that despite reaching the target temperature significantly earlier, prehospital initiation of hypothermic temperature control did not improve favourable neurological recovery compared to in-hospital initiation. Furthermore, early initiation also significantly increased the odds for recurrent cardiac arrest and pulmonary oedema. Therefore, these findings do not support the implementation of prehospital hypothermic temperature control in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, although evidence regarding fluid-sparing approaches such as transnasal evaporative cooling remains limited.
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.