↓ Skip to main content

ROSC rates and live discharge rates after cardiopulmonary resuscitation by different CPR teams - a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
ROSC rates and live discharge rates after cardiopulmonary resuscitation by different CPR teams - a retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0457-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tak Kyu Oh, Young Mi Park, Sang-Hwan Do, Jung-Won Hwang, In-Ae Song

Abstract

Previous studies have reported that the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is closely associated with patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare patient CPR outcomes across resident, emergency medicine, and rapid response teams. The records of patients who underwent CPR at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Return of spontaneous circulation, 10- and 30-day survival, and live discharge after return of spontaneous circulation were compared across patients treated by the three CPR teams. Of the 1145 CPR cases, 444 (39%) were conducted by the resident team, 431 (38%) by the rapid response team, and 270 (23%) by the emergency medicine team. The adjusted odds ratios for the return of spontaneous circulation and subsequent 10-day survival among patients who received CPR from the resident team compared to the rapid response team were 0.59 (P = 0.001) and 0.71 (P = 0.037), respectively. There were no significant differences in the 30-day survival and rate of live discharge between patients who received CPR from the rapid response and resident teams; likewise, no significant differences were observed between patients who received CPR from the emergency medicine and rapid response teams. Patients receiving CPR from the rapid response team may have higher 10-day survival and return of spontaneous circulation rates than those who receive CPR from the resident team. However, our results are limited by the differences in approach, time of CPR, and room settings between teams.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Other 3 12%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 27%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 7 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,249,841
of 14,590,652 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#285
of 944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,196
of 400,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#49
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,590,652 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 944 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 400,854 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.