This story succinctly conveys the important key messages of a new guideline issued by the American Heart Association on bystander use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It quotes three sources, including a spokesperson for the local Red Cross—who, interestingly, fails to provide a wholehearted endorsement for the new hands-only recommendations. The story misses an opportunity to explore this contrary view: Is it rooted in the quality of the evidence to support the new guideline, or something else? It’s important that news reports take a critical look at the quality of the evidence behind new scientific recommendations, regardless of the prestige of the medical authority behind them. The story also feels thin when it comes to quantifying the benefit of hands-only CPR. It cites the AHA guideline, saying bystander CPR “can double or triple a person’s chances of survival.” However, it doesn’t say what the current rate of survival is, or offer an explanation of how many people might be saved if more bystanders performed hands-only CPR. The answers to these questions would require futher digging beyond the AHA guideline, reporting within the scope of this article.
The news story does not mention costs, but a discussion of cost is relatively unimportant in the context of this issue.
The story cites the AHA guideline, saying bystander CPR “can double or triple a person’s chances of survival.” However, it doesn’t say what the current rate of survival is (quite low), or offer an explanation of how many people might be saved if more bystanders helped with hands-only CPR. The answers to these questions would require futher digging beyond the AHA guideline, reporting within the scope of this article. A doubling or tripling of a low rate is still a very small absolute number.
The story implies that hands-only CPR can be harmful (“people … fear that they’ll hurt the person or be sued…"). The main physical harm is occasional fractured ribs caused by vigorous compressions, though the story doesn’t make this explicit. The story explains that bystanders are protected from lawsuits by Good Samaritan laws.
The story notes that “three large studies” published in 2007 support the American Heart Association’s new, hands-only CPR recommendations. However, it doesn’t describe the nature or quality of these studies. All are observational studies that compare survival after bystanders’ use of hand-only vs. standard CPR. The story does not mention their inherent limitations (e.g., they are not randomized and don’t take into account the quality or training of the bystanders).
The story does not overplay or hype the importance of sudden cardiac collapse. It notes that less than a third of bystanders perform CPR, and that hands-only CPR might improve this rate.
The story cites three sources, including two who appear to be independent of the CPR research or the AHA guideline. One source, a spokesperson for the regional office of the American Red Cross, provides a contrary view to the others.
The story notes that the primary alternative to hands-only CPR is standard CPR with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. It does not meniton other options, which include care provided by emergency medical personnel, automated external defibrillators, and hospital medical staff.
The story makes it clear that hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is something almost anyone can do, requiring no special drugs or equipment or even training.
The story mentions a “previous version” of the guidelines and refers to the current guidelines as an “update.”
Several sources are used; does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like