↓ Skip to main content

Pre-hospital versus in-hospital initiation of cooling for survival and neuroprotection after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 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
Pre-hospital versus in-hospital initiation of cooling for survival and neuroprotection after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010570.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasmin Arrich, Michael Holzer, Christof Havel, Alexandra-Maria Warenits, Harald Herkner

Abstract

Targeted temperature management (also known under 'therapeutic hypothermia', 'induced hypothermia'", or 'cooling') has been shown to be beneficial for neurological outcome in patients who have had successful resuscitation from sudden cardiac arrest, but it remains unclear when this intervention should be initiated. To assess the effects of pre-hospital initiation of cooling on survival and neurological outcome in comparison to in-hospital initiation of cooling for adults with pre-hospital cardiac arrest. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and three trials registers from inception to 5 March 2015, and carried out reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest comparing cooling in the pre-hospital setting to in-hospital cooling. Our primary outcomes were survival and neurological outcome; our secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the hospital. We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. We included seven RCTs (2369 participants randomized) on the induction of pre-hospital cooling in comparison to in-hospital cooling. There was considerable methodological heterogeneity and risk of bias mainly due to deficits in the administration of cooling, therefore we refrained from pooling the results for survival and neurological outcome and we presented the results for each study separately. Adverse events were rare: based on four studies with 1713 adults pre-hospital induction of cooling may increase the risk of cardiac re-arrests. Risk of bias within the seven individual studies was generally moderate. Overall the quality of the evidence was very low. This was mainly driven by inconsistency and low precision. Currently, there is no convincing evidence to clearly delineate beneficial or harmful effects of pre-hospital induction of cooling in comparison to in-hospital induction of cooling. This conclusion is based on very low quality evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 208 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 61 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 68 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 05 March 2017.
All research outputs
#768,416
of 18,752,310 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,874
of 11,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,524
of 272,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,752,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 272,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.