↓ Skip to main content

Influence of EMS-physician presence on survival after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
134 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Influence of EMS-physician presence on survival after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1156-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd W. Böttiger, Michael Bernhard, Jürgen Knapp, Peter Nagele

Abstract

Evidence suggests that EMS-physician-guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may be associated with improved outcomes, yet randomized controlled trials are not available. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine the association between EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR and survival after OOHCA. Studies that compared EMS-physician- versus paramedic-guided CPR in OOHCA published until June 2014 were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. All studies were required to contain survival data. Data on study characteristics, methods, and as well as survival outcomes were extracted. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis due to a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies (I (2)  = 44 %). Return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge were the outcome measures. Out of 3,385 potentially eligible studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. In the pooled analysis (n = 126,829), EMS-physician-guided CPR was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to paramedic-guided CPR: ROSC 36.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 31.0 - 41.7 %) vs. 23.4 % (95 % CI 18.5 - 29.2 %) (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95 % CI 1.36 - 2.63, p < 0.001); survival to hospital admission 30.1 % (95 % CI 24.2 - 36.7 %) vs. 19.2 % (95 % CI 12.7 - 28.1 %) (pooled OR 1.78, 95 % CI 0.97 - 3.28, p = 0.06); and survival to discharge 15.1 % (95 % CI 14.6 - 15.7 %) vs. 8.4 % (95 % CI 8.2 - 8.5 %) (pooled OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.48 - 2.79, p < 0.001). This systematic review suggests that EMS-physician-guided CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with improved survival outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 134 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Researcher 14 14%
Other 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 16 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. 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 11 December 2018.
All research outputs
#203,170
of 17,083,063 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#101
of 5,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,314
of 374,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,083,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,277 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 374,762 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.