Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38014539›Full record

ReviewCirculation2024

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

Karen G Hirsch, Benjamin S Abella, Edilberto Amorim, Mary Kay Bader, Jeffrey F Barletta, Katherine Berg, Clifton W Callaway, Hans Friberg, Emily J Gilmore, David M Greer and 15 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Circulation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Karen G Hirsch
Benjamin S Abella
Edilberto Amorim
Mary Kay Bader
Jeffrey F Barletta
Katherine Berg
Clifton W Callaway
Hans Friberg
Emily J Gilmore
David M Greer
Karl B Kern
Sarah Livesay
Teresa L May
Robert W Neumar
Jerry P Nolan
Mauro Oddo
Mary Ann Peberdy
Samuel M Poloyac
David Seder
Fabio Silvio Taccone
Anezi Uzendu
Brian Walsh
Janice L Zimmerman
Romergryko G Geocadin
American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society

Funding

Telemedicine to Reduce Disparities in the Identification and Treatment of Neonatal EncephalopathyP20GM139745 · NIGMS · MAINEHEALTH · PI David B. Seder · 2021 to 2026
$19.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM139745
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationEmergency Medical ServicesHeart ArrestAmerican Heart AssociationCritical CareHumansAHA Scientific Statementscritical careheart arresthypoxia-ischemia, brainresuscitationshock, cardiogenic

Identifiers

PMID38014539
PMCPMC10775969

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.