↓ Skip to main content

Recognition of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during emergency calls — a systematic review of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recognition of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during emergency calls — a systematic review of observational studies
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13049-017-0350-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Søren Viereck, Thea Palsgaard Møller, Josephine Philip Rothman, Fredrik Folke, Freddy Knudsen Lippert

Abstract

The medical dispatcher plays an essential role as part of the first link in the Chain of Survival, by recognising the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) during the emergency call, dispatching the appropriate first responder or emergency medical services response, performing dispatcher assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and referring to the nearest automated external defibrillator. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare studies reporting recognition of OHCA patients during emergency calls. This systematic review was reported in compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 4 November 2015. Observational studies, reporting the proportion of clinically confirmed OHCAs that was recognised during the emergency call, were included. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Data were extracted and the risk of bias within studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool for quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. A total of 3,180 abstracts were screened for eligibility and 53 publications were assessed in full-text. We identified 16 studies including 6,955 patients that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. The studies reported recognition of OHCA with a median sensitivity of 73.9% (range: 14.1-96.9%). The selection of study population and the definition of "recognised OHCA" (threshold for positive test) varied greatly between the studies, resulting in high risk of bias. Heterogeneity in the studies precluded meta-analysis. Among the 16 included studies, we found a median sensitivity for OHCA recognition of 73.9% (range: 14.1-96.9%). However, great heterogeneity between study populations and in the definition of "recognised OHCA", lead to insufficient comparability of results. Uniform and transparent reporting is required to ensure comparability and development towards best practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Other 10 10%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Engineering 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 33 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,084,955
of 15,332,108 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#507
of 939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,181
of 355,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,332,108 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.