Association between basic life support and survival in sports-related sudden cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: To evaluate the association of basic life support with survival after sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (SR-SCA). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of several databases from each database inception to 31 July 2021 without language restrictions was conducted. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated one of three scenarios in patients with SR-SCA: (i) bystander presence, (ii) bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or (iii) bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use and provided information on survival. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. The primary outcome was survival at the longest follow up. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate certainty in the evidence. In total, 28 non-randomized studies were included. The meta-analysis showed significant benefit on survival in all three groups: bystander presence [odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-4.37; I2 = 25%; 9 studies-988 patients], bystander CPR (OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.36-6.25; I2 = 54%; 23 studies-2523 patients), and bystander AED use (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.58-7.70; I2 = 16%; 19 studies-1227 patients). The GRADE certainty of evidence was judged to be moderate. CONCLUSION: In patients with SR-SCA, bystander presence, bystander CPR, and bystander AED use were significantly associated with survival. These results highlight the importance of witness intervention and encourage countries to develop their first aid training policy and AED installation in sport settings.

COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles. METHODS: The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools. RESULTS: Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337). CONCLUSIONS: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.