[Effects between chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a Meta-analysis].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate and compare the resuscitation efficacy of chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: Databases such as PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, CBM were searched from the date of their foundation to March 2nd 2018, and the studies on the difference of effects between CCPR and SCPR for patients with OHCA were retrieved. The outcomes included the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, survival to hospital discharge, neurological function completion rate. Two reviewers independently screened the literature meeting the inclusion criteria, independently collected information and evaluated the literature quality. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software, and sensitivity analysis was conducted by selecting model analysis method and removing single research method. Funnel plot was used to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 10 cohort studies were included, including 174 163 patients with OHCA, of which 95 157 undergone CCPR and 79 006 undergone SCPR. The scores of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were 8-9, indicating that the quality of the literatures included was high. It was shown by the Meta-analysis that CCPR had the higher rate of survival to hospital discharge [relative risk (RR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.00-1.08, P = 0.04] and neurological function completion (RR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.06-1.17, P < 0.000 1) than SCPR, but there was no significant difference in ROSC rate between the two groups (RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.98-1.04, P = 0.52). In the subgroup, there was no statistical significance between CCPR and SCPR in the rate of survival to hospital discharge in cardiac OHCA patients (RR = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.82-1.57, P = 0.45). However, in non-cardiac OHCA group, SCPR showed more benefits than CCPR in improving the rate of survival to hospital discharge (RR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.80-0.96, P = 0.004). The above analysis results were consistent in the fixed effect model and random effect model, indicating that the results were reliable and stable. It was shown by the funnel plot that most of the studies were left-right inverted funnel type, indicating a low publication bias. However, the bias could not be completely excluded due to the small number of included literatures. CONCLUSIONS: For patients without OHCA etiological classification, CCPR was not less than SCPR in improving ROSC rate, discharge survival rate and good neurological function, and CCPR was more advantageous in learning and the willingness of bystanders to implement. However, when non-cardiogenic OHCA could be identified, SCPR should be recommended when conditions permit.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,015 | 0,055 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».