Calcium during cardiac arrest: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To perform a systematic review of administration of calcium compared to no calcium during cardiac arrest. Methods: The search included Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus and was conducted on September 30, 2022. The population included adults and children in any setting with cardiac arrest. The outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, survival, survival with favourable neurologic outcome to hospital discharge and 30 days or longer, and quality of life outcome. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and ROBINS-I were performed to assess risk of bias for controlled and observational studies, respectively. Results: The systematic review identified 4 studies on 3 randomised controlled trials on 554 adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, 8 observational studies on 2,731 adult cardiac arrest patients, and 3 observational studies on 17,449 paediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients. The randomised controlled and observational studies showed that routine calcium administration during cardiac arrest did not improve the outcome of adult OHCA or IHCA or paediatric IHCA. The risk of bias for the adult trials was low for one recent trial and high for two earlier trials, with randomization as the primary source of bias. The risk of bias for the individual observational studies was assessed to be critical due to confounding. The certainty of evidence was assessed to be moderate for adult OHCA and low for adult and paediatric IHCA. Heterogeneity across studies precluded any meaningful meta-analyses. Conclusions: This systematic review found no evidence that routine calcium administration improves the outcomes of cardiac arrest in adults or children.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022349641.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".