ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Identification of in-hospital cardiac arrest aetiologies and return of spontaneous circulation.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guidelines emphasise that reversible causes of cardiac arrest are identified to improve the chance of successful resuscitation and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). In this study, we investigated the effect of correct identification of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) aetiologies on the rate of ROSC in patients without obvious aetiology. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the WHY-IHCA study and leveraged data on presumed IHCA aetiologies and on expert panel-assessed IHCA aetiologies from this study. Correct identification of aetiology was defined as patients where the presumed aetiology was the same as the aetiology assessed by at least 3 of 4 experts. The effect of correct identification of IHCA aetiologies on the rate of ROSC was assessed using logistic regression with adjustment for age, witnessed status, monitored status, shockable status, and actual aetiology. Results: A total of 150 patients were included of which the aetiology was correctly identified in 80 (53%) patients. The rate of ROSC was 54% and 41% in those with and without correct identification of aetiology, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, correct aetiology identification resulted in a 1.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-4.57) times higher odds of ROSC. Results were similar in exploratory analyses of more stringent and more liberal definitions of correct aetiology identification. Conclusion: The rate of ROSC is higher in patients in whom the aetiology of IHCA is correctly recognised. After adjustment for confounders, correct identification of aetiologies resulted in a numerically higher, although not statistically significant, odds of ROSC.
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.