ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Validation and comparison of two prearrest prediction scores for in-hospital cardiac arrest survival.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal pre-arrest prediction model for survival with favorable neurological outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) to aid Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation-decisions remains uncertain. This study aimed to externally validate the Prediction of Outcome for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (PIHCA) score and the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) 2 score and compare their performance for IHCA survival prediction. Method: We collected data from IHCAs across three Swedish hospitals covering all care levels. We identified IHCAs through the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation during 2015-2021 and extracted prediction model data through electronic medical records. Outcome measure was survival with favorable neurological survival defined as Cerebral Performance Category 1-2 at discharge, obtained from the registry. Prediction model performance was assessed with AUROC-curves (c-statistic), calibration coefficients and nonparametric calibration plots. Results: We identified 647 IHCAs of which 501 were eligible for inclusion. Overall, 28% had survival with favorable neurological outcome. AUROC for the PIHCA score was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78), compared to 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65-0.75) for the GO-FAR 2 score. The 95% CI for difference of AUROC-score when PIHCA score was compared to GO-FAR 2 score was -0.01 to 0.06, i.e. not significant. The PIHCA score calibration coefficient was 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.88) compared to the GO FAR 2 score calibration coefficient of 1.02 (95% CI 0.73-1.34). The calibration plots were adequate for both scores, although with some degree of miscalibration at certain ranges for each model. Conclusion: PIHCA score and the GO-FAR 2 score performed well and comparatively for prediction of survival with favorable neurological outcome following IHCA in a Swedish setting. Both scores could be considered for clinical use, in addition to sound clinical judgment, where the PIHCA score seems more adapted for clinical use.
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.