This article summarizes recent research and expert opinion about new guidelines on bystanders’ use of hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to treat victims of cardiac arrest. Overall, the story covers the topic well. However, it could offer readers just a bit more about the nature and strength of the evidence showing that hands-on CPR is as effective as standard CPR (which includes mouth-to-mouth resuscitation). The evidence comes from a mix of retrospective and prospective studies that are necessarily observational (not randomized controlled studies) and report the outcomes of bystanders’ attempts to revive someone suddenly stricken down. The studies are quite large, and involve hundreds and sometimes thousands of patients in different parts of the world. The news story could also fine-tune its discussion of the potential benefits of expanded use of hands-only CPR. Quantifying this benefit is surely tricky, but the current account provides inexact estimates without explaining the uncertainty surrounding them.
The news story does not mention costs, but a discussion of cost is relatively unimportant in the context of this story.
The article says that CPR in any form "may double the rate of survival from cardiac rest." According to a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, this means that “we can save tens of thousands of lives.” Later in the story the spokesperson is reported as saying that when more people use CPR in cities such as Seattle, survival rates have jumped to as high as 30%. An AHA scientific statement says cities such as Seattle have reported survival of “more than 15%.” It adds that hands-only CPR and other changes (e.g. dispatcher-assisted "telephone" CPR) could save "thousands of additional lives" every year." This mix of relative and absolute estimates suggest there is surely some real benefit to increasing the use of CPR, but the precise amount of that benefit remains a bit fuzzy.
The news article explains that when CPR is performed with chest compressions only (without mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) the main harm is rib fractures induced by energetic chest thumping.
Although the story mentions that "3 major studies published last year" provide evidence to support the new AHA recommendations on CPR, it fails to discuss the quality of this evidence. The studies comparing survival after bystanders’ use of hand-only vs. standard CPR are necessarily observational. The story could have explained the possible limitation of such studies.
The article explains that a tiny minority of people who need CPR actually receive it. It also reassures readers that untrained bystanders can perform CPR and potentially save lives. The story does not exaggerate the problem of untreated cardiac arrest.
The article cites three sources, two of them associated with the American Heart Association (which developed the new guidelines) and one an apparently independent expert who supports the guidelines.
The article discusses hands-only and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and explains that these are used while bystanders await other options—usually treatment by emergency medical personnel and/or automated external defibrillator and, ultimately, hospital medical staff.
The news article makes it clear that virtually anyone can perform hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It requires no devices or drugs. The major barrier to treatment appears to be fear–of harm to the victim or rescuer, and/or and fear of failing to perform CPR correctly.
The article points out that CPR has been taught in first-aid classes for more than 40 years.
There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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