Examining the Prognostic Utility of Frailty for Post-arrest Outcomes Following the Provision of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundAdvanced knowledge of patient prognosis following a cardiac arrest is necessary to determine if resuscitation efforts are futile and ensure value-congruent care. Prior reviews have identified the prognostic factors associated with survival and recovery following cardiac arrest. However, few studies to date have examined the prognostic value of frailty in predicting post-arrest outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the available evidence reporting the association between frailty and patient outcomes following the provision of CPR in-hospital or out-of-hospital MethodsWe searched the following electronic databases from inception until August 2020: Medline Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Index citations, Pubmed exclusive of Medline citations, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. We plan to include observational studies that examine the association between frailty and any of the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, survival at one, three and twelve months post-arrest, return of spontaneous circulation, functional status at hospital discharge and one-month post-discharge, health-related quality of life at 90 days and one-year post-arrest, and discharge to continuing or long-term care. We plan to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis that pools the effect estimates from all eligible studies to obtain a summary estimate and confidence interval. DiscussionThe findings of this review can be used to determine if the evidence supports the consideration of frailty when discussing advanced directives and care planning with patients, families and caregivers. The findings of this review can also be used to inform future prognostic and clinical prediction models aiming to predict post-resuscitation outcomes. Systematic Review RegistrationThis review has been submitted to the PROSPERO registry (submission ID: 212922)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".