ReviewJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Video Review of Cardiac Arrest: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: As there is no published review of video review use in cardiac arrest (CA) research, we set out to perform a scoping review to describe the demographics, settings, interventions, and outcomes in the literature. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for scoping reviews, we queried PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception through April 22, 2024, and then updated the query to cover publications through March 7, 2025, including adult CA studies using video-derived data from prehospital, emergency department, or intensive care settings, excluding pediatric and simulation studies. Independent screening and data extraction were both performed by 2 of the reviewers, with a third reviewer and principal investigator resolving discrepancies, respectively. Extracted data encompassed study aims, setting, patient demographics, video review reliability, and detailed information on outcomes, metrics (eg, chest compression fraction), and interventions (eg, intubation). Results: From 3081 identified publications, 76 were included, with 64.5% being manuscripts. They originated from the USA (48.7%), Asia (31.6%), and Europe (19.7%). Studies were predominantly single center (98.7%), from urban settings (82.9%), with retrospective (47.4%) or prospective (31.6%) observational designs. There was marked heterogeneity in reporting methodologies. The median number of patients enrolled was 71. Interrater reliability was reported in only 12 studies. Common reported patient outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (39.5%), key metrics such as duration of interruptions (52.6%), and time-to-events (51.3%). Frequently reported interventions included mechanical compression device use (36.8%), defibrillation (34.2%), and intubation (28.9%). Publication volume significantly increased over the last 2 decades. Conclusions: Video review enables a precise, multidomain assessment of resuscitation performance of CA that conventional data sources cannot provide. Future work should prioritize consensus definitions and establishing minimum reporting standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.