↓ Skip to main content

Applying the termination of resuscitation rules to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of both cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
44 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Applying the termination of resuscitation rules to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of both cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies: a prospective cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1226-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masahiro Kashiura, Yuichi Hamabe, Akiko Akashi, Atsushi Sakurai, Yoshio Tahara, Naohiro Yonemoto, Ken Nagao, Arino Yaguchi, Naoto Morimura, on behalf of the SOS-KANTO 2012 Study Group

Abstract

The 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation recommend Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) rules for termination of resuscitation (TOR). However, it is unclear whether the TOR rules are valid for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) of both cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies. In this study, we validated the TOR rules for OHCA resulting from both etiologies. This was a prospective multicenter observational study of OHCA patients transported to 67 emergency hospitals between January 2012 and March 2013 in the Kanto region of Japan. We calculated the specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for neurologically unfavorable outcomes at one month in patients with OHCA of cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies. Of 11,505 eligible cases, 6,138 and 5,367 cases were of cardiac and non-cardiac etiology, respectively. BLS was performed on 2,818 and 2,606 patients with OHCA of cardiac and non-cardiac etiology, respectively. ALS was performed on 3,320 and 2,761 patients with OHCA of cardiac and non-cardiac etiology, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the TOR rules for predicting unfavorable outcomes in patients with OHCA of cardiac etiology who received BLS included a specificity of 0.985 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.956-0.997) and a PPV of 0.999 (95 % CI: 0.996-1.000). In patients with OHCA from cardiac etiologies who received ALS, the TOR rules had a specificity of 0.963 (95 % CI: 0.896-0.992) and a PPV of 0.997 (95 % CI: 0.991-0.999). In patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies who received BLS, the specificity was 0.915 (95 % CI: 0.796-0.976) and PPV was 0.998 (95 % CI: 0.995-0.999). For patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies who received ALS, the specificity was 0.833 (95 % CI: 0.586-0.964) and PPV was 0.996 (95 % CI: 0.988-0.999). Both TOR rules have high specificity and PPV in patients with OHCA from cardiac etiologies. For patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies, the rules had a high PPV, but relatively low specificity. Therefore, TOR rules are useful in patients with OHCA from cardiac etiologies, but should be applied with caution to patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,150,962
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#949
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,357
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#21
of 90 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 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 85% 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 312,602 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 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.