Prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping and expanded grey literature review for the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Matthew J. Douma
  2. Ella MacKenzie
  3. Tess Loch
  4. Maria C. Tan
  5. Dustin Anderson
  6. Christopher Picard
  7. Lazar Milovanovic
  8. Domhnall O’Dochartaigh
  9. Peter G. Brindley

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.07.010
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.21.20109710: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: Our systematic grey literature search strategy was designed by author MD and followed previously accepted, peer-reviewed, methods.[15] It consisted of four parts: i) internet search engine (Chrome anonymous browser for de-personalized Google search without geographical bias) (EM), ii) targeted website searching of emergency department, critical care and resuscitation organizations (TC), iii) grey literature database searching (KS & EM), and iv) social media platform searching, including blogs (DOD).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The search included a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH) and keywords representing the concepts of prone positioning and CPR/compressions.
    MeSH
    suggested: (MeSH, RRID:SCR_004750)
    The MEDLINE search strategy was developed by the librarian and principal investigator (MJD), then translated for each database, and conducted on April 25, 2020.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Multiple structured searches of Google Scholar were also performed and experts reviewed our search strategy and helped identify any missing articles.
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    Data were extracted into a Google Spreadsheet [Google, Mountain View California, USA].
    Google
    suggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Clearly, our scoping review has limitations which limit its generalizability. These include a general lack of studies, a focus on operating theatre patients and a preponderance of witnessed arrests. The evidence is mostly from cases, and is therefore of comparatively low quality and predates the 2015 resuscitation guidelines. We also had to rely upon Google Translate for one French, one German and one Korean case report. Regardless, rather than prone resuscitation being as an area of niche interest, we believe our modest scoping review has highlighted an area of increasingly clinical relevance and research priority. Conclusion: This scoping review demonstrated that the majority of published literature on prone resuscitation are neurosurgical cases with positive outcomes. Although this scoping review has not identified sufficient evidence to prompt a systematic reviews or reconsideration of current guidelines, it pinpoints gaps in the research evidence related to prone resuscitation, namely a lack of moderate to high-level evidence and paucity of studies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We hope this review can help inform the care of prone patients during the covid-19 pandemic should they require resuscitation.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.21.20109710v1 on medRxiv