Question · asked by 1 review
Continuous chest compression plus ventilation vs interrupted chest compression plus artificial ventilation: Survival to hospital admission
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuous chest compression plus ventilation vs interrupted chest compression plus ventilation Survival to hospital admission · Patients with non‐trauma related out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23711 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non‐asphyxial out‐of‐hospital… 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.