Study of Survival Rate After Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in Hospitals of Kermanshah in 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After CPR, the follow-up of survival rate and caused complications are the most important practices of the medical group. This study was performed aimed at determining the follow-up results after CPR in patients of university hospitals in Kermanshah in 2014. METHODS: In this prospective study, 320 samples were examined. A purposive sampling method was used, and data was collected using a researcher-made information form with content and face validity and reliability of r= 0.79. Data was analyzed with STATA9 software and statistical tests, including calculation of the success rate, relative risk (RR), chi-square and Fisher at significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: The initial success rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was equal to 15.3%, while the ultimate success rate (discharged alive from the hospital) was as 10.6%. The six-month success rate after resuscitation was 8.78% than those who were discharged alive. There were no significant statistical differences between different age groups regarding the initial success rate of resuscitation (P = 0.14), and the initial resuscitation success rate was higher in patients in morning shift (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: By the results of study, it is recommended to increase the medical - nursing knowledge and techniques for personnel in the evening and night shifts. Also, an appropriate dissemination of health care staff in working shifts should be done to increase the success rate of CPR procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".