MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396634340 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100653

Emergency front-of-neck access in cardiac arrest: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4396634340 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Airway management is a core component of the treatment of cardiac arrest. Where a rescuer cannot establish a patent airway to provide oxygenation and ventilation using standard basic and advanced airway techniques, there may be a need to consider emergency front-of-neck airway access (eFONA, e.g., cricothyroidotomy), but there is limited evidence to inform this approach. Objectives: This scoping review aims to identify the evidence for the use of eFONA techniques in patients with cardiac arrest. Methods: In November 2023, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central to identify studies on eFONA in adults. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, and case series with at least five cases that described any use of eFONA. We extracted data, including study setting, population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. Our analysis focused on four key areas: incidence of eFONA, eFONA success rates, clinical outcomes, and complications. Results: The search identified 21,565 papers, of which 18,934 remained after de-duplication. After screening, we included 69 studies (53 reported incidence, 40 reported success rate, 38 reported clinical outcomes; 36 studies reported complications). We identified only one randomised controlled trial. Across studies, there was a total of 4,457 eFONA attempts, with a median of 31 attempts (interquartile range 16-56.5) per study. There was marked heterogeneity across studies that precluded any pooling of data. There were no studies that included only patients in cardiac arrest. Conclusion: The available evidence for eFONA is extremely heterogeneous, with no studies specifically focusing on its use in adults with cardiac arrest.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it