Bystander CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) remains an underutilized resource for victims of cardiac arrest. This story adds to evidence about how important it may be for observers to step in quickly when someone near them collapses, without waiting for the arrival of an ambulance.
The story did a good job providing exact numbers on what the researchers measured, and it mentioned a few limitations to the study. It could have been a bit more clear on how this was measured–that it was looking at correlations between bystander CPR and survival rates, and not a direct experiment where more factors can be controlled (such as making sure the CPR is administered correctly).
Studies like the one reported in this article are important for building understanding among the lay public about the benefits–and limits–of CPR.
There is no direct cost to bystander CPR, so this category is not applicable.
The story does a good job of giving exact numbers of survivors who did and didn’t receive CPR in the study. It provides exact survival times for ambulance arrivals at 5, 10, and 13 minutes. These statistics are provided both in terms of percentages and ratios.
The intervention studied here involves a last-ditch emergency effort to revive a person who is dying. There are some potential harms if the resuscitated person survives, and the story didn’t mention those, but given the measured approach of this story and the nature of the research, we feel this one is N/A.
In this story, important limitations of study findings are explained to some degree, enough to be satisfactory. An author of the study is cited explaining that the findings do not definitely establish that CPR is actually the direct cause of the higher survival rates reported. The reason for that, unstated, is that this study reports the correlation between cases in which bystander CPR was administered and patient survival rates. It wasn’t an experiment that could prove one caused the other–that could have been made clearer.
Granted, at the end of the story we learn “the study is observational and doesn’t prove bystander CPR increases survival odds, the authors note in Circulation. Researchers also lacked data on how quickly bystanders intervened after the start of cardiac arrest, which could influence outcomes, the authors note.”
But since some readers may not know what “observational” means, this could have been spelled out more.
The story quotes two independent experts whose specific credentials are clearly presented. These sources are cited on the general mechanism of CPR and the importance of starting CPR early. Ideally, they’d also speak to the research itself, providing context on what the general public should know. But given that the story presents the research accurately, and included a discussion of limitations, this is a minor concern here.
In a way this story is all about the alternative to bystander CPR: doing nothing until the ambulance arrives. There really isn’t another alternative that could have been discussed.
The story doesn’t outright state that pretty much anybody is capable of performing CPR. However, it does imply that CPR is widely available by explaining that the biggest barrier to bystander CPR is that too few people know how to do it. More explanation about how easy it is to learn the procedure (training can be done in just a few minutes) would have improved that aspect of the article.
While the story doesn’t make it explicitly clear what’s novel, it does provide enough context for the reader to understand that this study builds upon past research that was more general. That’s done via this quote:
“We know from previous research that 1 in 8 people survive after a cardiac arrest if a bystander initiates CPR before the arrival of the emergency medical services,” Rajan said by email. “In contrast, if CPR is not initiated before the arrival of the emergency medical services, only 1 in 30 people survive a cardiac arrest.”
The story does not appear to be based solely on a press release. It quotes two experts who were not involved in the study.
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