Video Review of Cardiac Arrest: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Micah Wolfsohn, Mohamed Ali, Rahul Ramraj, Timmy Li, Jaclyn Morales, Ghania Haddad, Elizabeth Young, Lance Becker, Daniel Rolston, Daniel Jafari
{"title":"Video Review of Cardiac Arrest: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Micah Wolfsohn, Mohamed Ali, Rahul Ramraj, Timmy Li, Jaclyn Morales, Ghania Haddad, Elizabeth Young, Lance Becker, Daniel Rolston, Daniel Jafari","doi":"10.1016/j.acepjo.2026.100407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As there is no published review of video review use in cardiac arrest (CA) research, we set out to perform a scoping review to describe the demographics, settings, interventions, and outcomes in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for scoping reviews, we queried PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception through April 22, 2024, and then updated the query to cover publications through March 7, 2025, including adult CA studies using video-derived data from prehospital, emergency department, or intensive care settings, excluding pediatric and simulation studies. Independent screening and data extraction were both performed by 2 of the reviewers, with a third reviewer and principal investigator resolving discrepancies, respectively. Extracted data encompassed study aims, setting, patient demographics, video review reliability, and detailed information on outcomes, metrics (eg, chest compression fraction), and interventions (eg, intubation).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 3081 identified publications, 76 were included, with 64.5% being manuscripts. They originated from the USA (48.7%), Asia (31.6%), and Europe (19.7%). Studies were predominantly single center (98.7%), from urban settings (82.9%), with retrospective (47.4%) or prospective (31.6%) observational designs. There was marked heterogeneity in reporting methodologies. The median number of patients enrolled was 71. Interrater reliability was reported in only 12 studies. Common reported patient outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (39.5%), key metrics such as duration of interruptions (52.6%), and time-to-events (51.3%). Frequently reported interventions included mechanical compression device use (36.8%), defibrillation (34.2%), and intubation (28.9%). Publication volume significantly increased over the last 2 decades.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video review enables a precise, multidomain assessment of resuscitation performance of CA that conventional data sources cannot provide. Future work should prioritize consensus definitions and establishing minimum reporting standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":"7 3","pages":"100407"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13158408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acepjo.2026.100407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: As there is no published review of video review use in cardiac arrest (CA) research, we set out to perform a scoping review to describe the demographics, settings, interventions, and outcomes in the literature.

Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for scoping reviews, we queried PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception through April 22, 2024, and then updated the query to cover publications through March 7, 2025, including adult CA studies using video-derived data from prehospital, emergency department, or intensive care settings, excluding pediatric and simulation studies. Independent screening and data extraction were both performed by 2 of the reviewers, with a third reviewer and principal investigator resolving discrepancies, respectively. Extracted data encompassed study aims, setting, patient demographics, video review reliability, and detailed information on outcomes, metrics (eg, chest compression fraction), and interventions (eg, intubation).

Results: From 3081 identified publications, 76 were included, with 64.5% being manuscripts. They originated from the USA (48.7%), Asia (31.6%), and Europe (19.7%). Studies were predominantly single center (98.7%), from urban settings (82.9%), with retrospective (47.4%) or prospective (31.6%) observational designs. There was marked heterogeneity in reporting methodologies. The median number of patients enrolled was 71. Interrater reliability was reported in only 12 studies. Common reported patient outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (39.5%), key metrics such as duration of interruptions (52.6%), and time-to-events (51.3%). Frequently reported interventions included mechanical compression device use (36.8%), defibrillation (34.2%), and intubation (28.9%). Publication volume significantly increased over the last 2 decades.

Conclusions: Video review enables a precise, multidomain assessment of resuscitation performance of CA that conventional data sources cannot provide. Future work should prioritize consensus definitions and establishing minimum reporting standards.

心脏骤停视频回顾:范围回顾。
目的:由于尚无关于视频回顾在心脏骤停(CA)研究中的应用的已发表综述,我们着手进行范围综述,以描述文献中的人口统计学、设置、干预措施和结果。方法:根据系统评价的首选报告项目和荟萃分析框架进行范围评价,我们查询了PubMed、Scopus、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆从成立到2024年4月22日的出版物,然后更新查询到2025年3月7日的出版物,包括使用院前、急诊科或重症监护室视频数据的成人CA研究,不包括儿科和模拟研究。独立筛选和数据提取均由2名审稿人进行,第三名审稿人和首席研究员分别解决差异。提取的数据包括研究目的、环境、患者人口统计学、视频回顾可靠性,以及结果、指标(如胸压分数)和干预措施(如插管)的详细信息。结果:在3081篇文献中,共纳入76篇,其中手稿占64.5%。他们分别来自美国(48.7%)、亚洲(31.6%)和欧洲(19.7%)。研究主要为单中心(98.7%)、城市环境(82.9%)、回顾性(47.4%)或前瞻性(31.6%)观察设计。报告方法有明显的差异。入组患者中位数为71例。只有12项研究报告了互估者的可靠性。常见的报告患者结果包括自然循环恢复(39.5%),关键指标如中断持续时间(52.6%)和事件发生时间(51.3%)。经常报道的干预措施包括使用机械压迫装置(36.8%)、除颤(34.2%)和插管(28.9%)。在过去的二十年中,出版物数量显著增加。结论:视频回顾能够对CA的复苏性能进行精确的多领域评估,这是传统数据源无法提供的。今后的工作应优先考虑共识定义和建立最低报告标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书