↓ Skip to main content

The effect of mild induced hypothermia on outcomes of patients after cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
The effect of mild induced hypothermia on outcomes of patients after cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1133-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xi Wen Zhang, Jian Feng Xie, Jian Xiao Chen, Ying Zi Huang, Feng Mei Guo, Yi Yang, Hai Bo Qiu

Abstract

Mild induced hypothermia (MIH) is believed to reduce mortality and neurological impairment after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, a recently published trial demonstrated that hypothermia at 33 °C did not confer a benefit compared with that of 36 °C. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was made to investigate the impact of MIH compared to controls on the outcomes of adult patients after cardiac arrest. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, the Web of Science, and Elsevier Science (inception to December 2014). RCTs that compared MIH with controls with temperature >34 °C in adult patients after cardiac arrest were retrieved. Two investigators independently selected RCTs and completed an assessment of the quality of the studies. Data were analysed by the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Random errors were evaluated with trial sequential analysis. Six RCTs, including one abstract, were included. The meta-analysis of included trials revealed that MIH did not significantly decrease the mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) = 0.92; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.04; p = 0.17) or at 6 months or 180 days (RR = 0.94; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.21; p = 0.64), but it did reduce the mortality of patients with shockable rhythms at hospital discharge (RR = 0.74; 95 % CI, 0.59-0.92; p = 0.008) and at 6 months or 180 days. However, MIH can improve the outcome of neurological function at hospital discharge (RR = 0.80; 95 % CI, 0.64-0.98; p = 0.04) especially in those patients with shockable rhythm but not at 6 months or 180 days. Moreover, the incidence of complications in the MIH group was significantly higher than that in the control group. Finally, trial sequential analysis indicated lack of firm evidence for a beneficial effect. The available RCTs suggest that MIH does not appear to improve the mortality of patients with cardiac arrest while it may have a beneficial effect for patients with shockable rhythms. Although MIH may result in some adverse events, it helped lead to better outcomes regarding neurological function at hospital discharge. Large-scale ongoing trials may provide data better applicable to clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Psychology 2 2%
Mathematics 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 13 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,524,773
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,348
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,159
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#94
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 395,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.