Correlation Between Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Duration and Neurological Outcomes Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Dose–Response Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest stands as a prominent global public health challenge. The effect of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) duration on neurological outcomes is inconclusive. Therefore, this study seeks to systematically review the link between CPR duration and neurological outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched up to October 15, 2024. The quality of the included studies was appraised via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. StataMP/15.1 was employed to analyze heterogeneity, sensitivity, and the dose-response relationship. Eight studies involving 369,897 patients were selected. This study unraveled that compared to the shortest CPR duration, prolonged CPR duration was correlated with a lower probability of good neurological outcomes [odds ratio = 0.05, 95% confidence interval: (0.02, 0.16), P < 0.001]. Moreover, prolonged CPR duration was related to a notably reduced 1-month survival rate [odds ratio = 0.06, 95% confidence interval: (0.03, 0.14), P < 0.001]. Dose-response analysis indicated nonlinear correlations between CPR duration and both favorable neurological prognosis and 1-month survival rate (P < 0.001). However, generally, the correlations between them were negative. In conclusion, prolonged CPR duration can substantially reduce the probability of favorable neurological prognosis and 1-month survival rate. Since the number of selected studies was small, high-quality studies are needed to validate the results.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".