↓ Skip to main content

The offering of family presence during resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The offering of family presence during resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40560-015-0107-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon JW Oczkowski, Ian Mazzetti, Cynthia Cupido, Alison E. Fox-Robichaud

Abstract

Family members may wish to be present during resuscitation of loved ones, despite concerns that they may interfere with the resuscitation or experience psychological harm. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether offering family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) affected patient mortality, resuscitation quality, or family member psychological outcomes. We searched multiple databases up to January 2014 for studies comparing FPDR to usual care. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data from randomized controlled trial (RCTs) at low or uncertain risk of bias were eligible for pooling. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Three RCTs evaluated the offering of FPDR in adults, finding no differences in resuscitation duration, prehospital/emergency room mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.19), or 28-day mortality (OR 1.24, 95 % CI [0.50-3.03]). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (mean difference [MD] -0.99, 95 % CI [-1.77, -0.22]) and depression (MD -1.00, 95 % CI [-1.78, -0.23]), along with Impact of Events Scale intrusion score (MD -1.00, 95 % CI [-1.96, -0.03]), were better in family members offered FPDR. One RCT evaluated FPDR in pediatric patients, finding no mortality differences at 28 days (OR 0.30; 95 % CI [0.11-0.79]), but did not report psychological outcomes in family members. Moderate-quality evidence suggests the offering of FPDR does not affect adult resuscitation outcomes and may improve family member psychological outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests FPDR does not affect pediatric resuscitation outcomes. The generalizability of these findings outside the prehospital and emergency room setting is limited due to the absence of trials in other health care settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bahrain 1 <1%
Unknown 125 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 21%
Student > Bachelor 25 20%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 26%
Psychology 8 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 27 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,691,352
of 23,574,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#135
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,018
of 280,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,574,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.