Cited by 95Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationDelphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in cardiac arrest clinical trials: the need for a core outcome set

Whitehead, L., Perkins, G.D., Clarey, A., Haywood, K.L.·2015·Resuscitation

Abstract

Background There is a limited guidance for outcome reporting for cardiac arrest trials. This review was conducted to explore the degree of variation and identify trends in outcome reporting. Methods Randomised controlled trials enrolling patients with cardiac arrest (2002-2012) were identified by applying a search strategy to four databases. Titles, abstracts and short-listed studies were independently assessed for eligibility. Data on the primary and secondary outcome measures, details of outcome reporting and reproducibility were extracted. Results 61 studies matched the inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the focus, method and timing of assessment. Outcomes most commonly reported across studies were: survival (85.2%), activities (52.5%), body structure or function (41.0%), and processes of care (26.2%). Over 160 individual outcomes were reported including 39 different reports of survival measures of which 11 were measurements of ROSC (return of spontaneous circulation). Twenty different assessments of activity limitation were reported; only one was patient-reported. Many assessments were poorly defined or non-reproducible. The majority of outcomes were assessed up to hospital discharge (89.3%). There was no one outcome measure that was assessed across all trials. Conclusions Outcome reporting in cardiac arrest RCTs lacks consistency and transparency. Guidance for improved outcome reporting is urgently required to reduce this heterogeneity in reporting, improve…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.013

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whitehead, L., Perkins, G. D., Clarey, A., & Haywood, K. L.
Affiliations
  • Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Royal Victoria Hospital (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Haywood, K.L.
Venue
Resuscitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
88
Pages
150-157
ISSN
0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130741939
Cited by
95
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0514-10139)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
cardiac arrest, outcome reporting, core outcome set, return of spontaneous circulation, survival outcomes, activity limitation, outcome heterogeneity, trial reporting quality
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Heart Arrest, Humans, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review