↓ Skip to main content

Disparities in a provision of in-hospital post-arrest interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the elderly population—protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Disparities in a provision of in-hospital post-arrest interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the elderly population—protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0234-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna M. Bielecki, Josephine Wong, Nicholas Mitsakakis, Prakesh S. Shah, Murray D. Krahn, Valeria E. Rac

Abstract

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a significant cause of death in developed countries. The majority of OHCA patients are elderly (≥65 years), and it was documented that they were less likely than younger patients to receive the evidence-based interventions, even though the improvement in survival in the elderly age group was higher than in younger population. Our goal is to investigate any disparity in the provision of post-arrest care for the elderly with OHCA and a sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Eight relevant, electronic databases will be systematically searched to identify eligible studies. The searches will be supplemented with gray literature searching of theses, dissertations, and hand searching of pertinent journals. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts and select studies for full text analysis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) method, and both will extract information from the selected studies employing a form based on the Data Extraction Template for Cochrane Reviews. A team of three reviewers will assess the quality of the studies with the modified Downs and Black scale. Statistical methods for evidence synthesis, such as meta-analysis and meta-regression, will be applied to compare and combine the evidence regarding the association between age and intervention provision/utilization, adjusting for a number of significant confounders, such as patient characteristics and co-morbidities and availability of intervention techniques, as well as study specific characteristics. The strength of evidence from the selected studies will be assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The findings obtained from this systematic review should inform whether disparity exists in the provision of post-arrest care for the elderly (≥ 65 years old) with OHCA or not. Addressing this problem has a potential to substantially increase the number of > 65-year-old, long-term survivors. The results of our review might also point to the gaps in the published literature that specifically examines disparity in provision of care for this population. This systematic review was designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Guidelines for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA statement), while the protocol follows the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. PROSPERO CRD42015027822.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Librarian 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Psychology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 21 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,978
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,281
of 315,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#38
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.