Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0234979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234979

Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yupeng Liu 1, Kunpeng Jing 1, Hongwei Liu 1, Yongfang Mu 1, Zhaoqin Jiang 1, Yadong Nie 1, Chongyang Zhang 1,*
Editor: Steve Lin2
PMCID: PMC7454961  PMID: 32857778

Abstract

The present meta-analysis was based on the available studies to determine the potential role of the initial and regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2) in monitoring the efficiency of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and predicting the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Three electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify the studies that investigated the role of rSO2 on ROSC in CA patients throughout May 2018. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to estimate the pooled effect using a random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup analyses, and publication bias were conducted. A total of 13 studies involving 678 CA patients (300 in-hospital (IH) patients, and 378 out-hospital (OH) patients) were included. The summary WMD suggested that ROSC patients were associated with higher initial rSO2 (WMD: 10.10%; 95% CI: 5.66–14.55; P<0.001) and mean rSO2 (WMD: 14.16%; 95% CI: 10.51–17.81; P<0.001) levels during CA and ROSC as compared to the non-ROSC. The results of meta-regression suggested that the male percentage and the location of cardiac arrest might bias the initial or mean rSO2 and the incidence of ROSC. These significant differences were observed in nearly all subsets. The findings of this study suggested that high initial or mean rSO2 levels were both associated with an increased incidence of ROSC in CA patients undergoing CPR. These correlations might be affected by the percentage of males or the location of cardiac arrest, thereby necessitating further large-scale studies to substantiate whether these correlations differ according to gender and the location of cardiac arrest.

Introduction

Cardiac arrest (CA) is an emergency endpoint of many diseases and conditions with high variability among individuals and is affected by genetic factors, age, environment, and gender [1]. The rate of survival to hospital discharge after CA was 6.3% in 2016 [2]. The Emergency Medical Services improved the survival rate to 12%, while the prognosis of the surviving patients with a satisfactory neurological function was <10% [3]. The high mortality rate of CA patients due to hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI), resulted in neuronal death and diffused brain edema [47]. The withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in patients was attributed to the prognostication of a poor neurological outcome [8,9]. Therefore, effective markers are an urgent requirement to predict the prognosis of CA patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Near-infrared spectroscopy is a non-invasive optical technique that is widely used to measure the regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2) in the superficial parts of the frontal lobe [10]. rSO2 provides real-time information on oxygen delivery during resuscitation in CA patients [11]. rSO2 is used for patients undergoing neonatal intensive care and has been introduced in in-hospital (IH) and out-hospital (OH) CA patients, but its role in monitoring the effectiveness of CPR has not yet been established [1214]. A previous meta-analysis based on nine studies found that the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in CA patients is associated with high initial and average rSO2 [15]. Whether these correlations differed among patients with different characteristics is not yet illustrated [15]. Therefore, we attempted a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis of the available studies to illustrate the associations of rSO2 with ROSC in CA patients and to compare these correlations according to the patients' characteristics.

Methods

Data sources, search strategy, and selection criteria

This study was conducted, and results reported according to the protocol for the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology [16]. The studies published in the English language, without any restriction on publication status, demonstrated that the association of rSO2 levels and the incidence of ROSC was eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. We systematically searched the electronic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from inception to May 2018 (print date), and the core search terms were "cerebral oximetry" AND ("cardiac" OR "cardiopulmonary") AND ("arrest" OR "resuscitation"). The reference lists from the potentially included studies were also searched to select additional eligible studies. The study selection criteria based on the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and study (PICOS) standard were employed to identify the eligible studies.

Two authors independently performed the literature search and selected the eligible studies using a standard flow. Any disagreement between the two authors was resolved by a group discussion to reach a consensus. The study inclusion criteria are listed as follows: (1) Participants: all the patients with CA and undergoing CPR; (2) Exposure: ROSC CA patients; (3) Control: non-ROSC patients; (4) Outcome: rSO2 was measured using near-infrared spectroscopy technique; (5) Study design: prospective or retrospective.

Data collection and quality assessment

The data were collected and quality assessed by two authors independently, and any inconsistencies were resolved by the corresponding author referring to the original article. The data items collected included the first author's last name, publication year, study design, country, sample size, mean age, the percentage of males, number of IH/OH, assessment of exposure, duration of resuscitation, and investigated outcomes. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to comprehensively assess the methodological quality of observational studies in the meta-analysis [17]. The NOS was based on selection (4 items), comparability (1 item), and outcome (3 items). The "star system" of NOS ranged from 0–9, and the study that scored ≥7 was regarded as high quality.

Statistical analysis

The correlations between initial or mean rSO2 and incidence of ROSC were based on the mean, standard deviation, and sample size in each group in the individual study. The pooled outcomes were calculated using a random-effects model for ROSC vs. non-ROSC patients [18,19]. The heterogeneity among the included studies was calculated using I2, and 25%, 50%, or 75% was considered as low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively [20,21]. The sensitivity analysis evaluated the impact of a single study from the overall analysis [22]. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to determine whether the characteristics of the studies and populations of patients influenced the conclusion of the meta-analysis [23]. The subgroup analyses were based on the publication year (this could be a confounder because of the changes in practice and guidelines over time), study design (prospective trials have more power than retrospective studies), mean age (age might influence cerebral oximetry and the outcomes of cardiac arrest), sex (males usually have worst cardiac outcomes than females), the location of cardiac arrest (cardiac arrests occurring at the hospital will be managed more promptly than those occurring outside), and study quality (study and data quality might affect the quality of the analyses and conclusions). Funnel plots and Egger and Begg tests' results were employed to evaluate any potential publication biases [24,25]. The reported P-values are two-sided, and P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant among the included studies. All the statistical analyses were conducted by STATA software (version 10.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Literature search

The electronic search retrieved 201 articles: 72 from PubMed, 124 from Embase, and five from the Cochrane library database. Subsequently, 162 studies were excluded as they were duplicates or irrelevant topics. As a result, a total of 39 potentially eligible studies were selected, and after detailed evaluation, 19 were excluded due to insufficient data, four studies presented other interventions, and three studies evaluated other topics. Finally, 13 studies were selected for the final analysis [2638]. The study selection process is illustrated in Fig 1, and the baseline characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1.

Fig 1. Study selection process.

Fig 1

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of included studies and patients.

First author's surname Study design Country Sample size Mean age (years) Percentage male (%) Number of IH/OH Assessment of exposure Duration of resuscitation (minutes) Reported outcomes Study quality
Ahn 2013 [25] Prospective USA 50 64.8 72.0 36/14 Equanox 7600, Nonin Medical, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA 34.4 Initial rSO2%; mean rSO2% 7
Parnia 2014 [26] Retrospective USA 34 71.0 64.7 34/0 Equanox, Nonin, Plymouth, MI, USA INVOS, Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA 19.0 Mean rSO2% 6
Genbrugge 2015 [27] Prospective Belgium 49 73.0 63.3 0/49 Equanox Advance, Nonin Medical, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA 21.0 Initial rSO2%; mean rSO2% 7
Singer 2014 [28] Retrospective USA 59 68.7 84.7 0/59 Equanox, Nonin, Plymouth MI, USA NA Mean rSO2% 6
Fukuda 2014 [29] Prospective Japan 69 66.1 69.6 0/69 INVOS 5100, Covidien, Boulder, CO, USA 38.7 Initial rSO2% 7
Koyama 2013 [30] Prospective Japan 15 79.5 66.7 0/15 Hamamatsu Photonics, Hamamatsu-Shi, Shizuoka, Japan NA Initial rSO2% 6
Parnia 2012 [31] Retrospective USA 15 73.8 NA 15/0 INVOS Somanetics, Troy, USA 16.3 Mean rSO2% 5
Meex 2013 [32] Prospective Belgium 14 66.0 74.4 5/9 FORE-SIGHT (CAS Medical Systems, Branford, CT, USA) and Equanox Advance (Nonin Medical, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA) 25.0 Initial rSO2% 6
Schewe 2014 [33] Prospective Germany 10 73.0 80.0 0/10 Equanox 7600, Nonin Medical, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA NA Mean rSO2% 5
Ibrahim 2015 [34] Prospective USA 27 65.6 96.3 27/0 Invos 5100 C near infrared spectroscopy device (Invos Somanetics, Troy, USA) 20.8 Initial rSO2%; mean rSO2% 7
Parnia 2016 [35] Prospective USA and United Kingdom 183 68.6 60.7 183/0 Equanox 7600, Nonin Medical, Plymouth, MN, USA 28.7 Mean rSO2% 7
Prosen 2018 [36] Prospective Slovenia 53 68.5 84.9 0/53 INVOS oximeter (Somanetics Corporation, Troy, MI, USA) 16.2 Initial rSO2%; mean rSO2% 7
Singer 2018 [37] Prospective USA 100 69.0 73.0 0/100 Equanox 7600, Nonin Medical, Plymouth, MN, USA NA Mean rSO2% 7

*IH: in-hospital arrests; NA: not available; OH: out-of-hospital arrests; rSO2: regional cerebral oxygen saturation.

Study characteristics

A total of 13 studies involving a total of 678 CA patients (300 IH patients and 378 OH patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Of these, 10 had a prospective design, and the remaining three studies were retrospective. The mean age of the patients was 64.8–79.5 years, and 10–183 patients were included in each study. Eleven studies were conducted in Western countries, and the remaining two studies were conducted in Eastern countries. The data on the correlation between initial rSO2 and ROSC were available from 7 studies and that between mean rSO2 and ROSC were available from 10 studies. The study quality was evaluated using NOS; seven of the included studies scored 7, four studies scored 6, and the remaining two studies scored 5.

Initial rSO2

The correlation established between initial rSO2 and ROSC from 7 pooled studies demonstrated that ROSC in patients was associated with high initial rSO2 level (weighted mean difference (WMD): 10.10%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.66–14.55; P<0.001; Fig 2), and significant heterogeneity was observed across the included studies (I2: 72.1%; P = 0.001). The conclusion from the sensitivity analysis was not altered after the sequential exclusion of individual studies from the overall analysis (Table 2). Meta-regression analyses indicated that the proportion of males (P = 0.032) and the location of cardiac arrest (P<0.001) could influence the association of initial rSO2 and ROSC. Furthermore, the subgroup analysis did not establish a significant correlation between initial rSO2 and ROSC if the study included both IH and OH CA patients, while significant associations were noted in all the other subsets (Table 3).

Fig 2. Association of the initial rSO2 level with the incidence of the return of spontaneous circulation.

Fig 2

Table 2. Sensitivity analyses for initial rSO2 and mean rSO2.

Outcomes Excluding study WMD and 95% CI P-value Heterogeneity (%) P-value for heterogeneity
Initial rSO2 (%) Ahn 2013 10.77 (6.02 to 15.52) <0.001 74.0 0.002
Genbrugge 2015 10.30 (5.44 to 15.16) <0.001 76.1 0.001
Fukuda 2014 10.27 (5.29 to 15.25) <0.001 75.9 0.001
Koyama 2013 9.91 (4.66 to 15.16) <0.001 76.4 0.001
Meex 2013 10.36 (5.75 to 14.97) <0.001 76.1 0.001
Ibrahim 2015 8.43 (5.96 to 10.90) <0.001 0.0 0.961
Prosen 2018 10.44 (5.24 to 15.64) <0.001 64.9 0.014
Mean rSO2 (%) Ahn 2013 14.02 (10.00 to 18.04) <0.001 78.2 <0.001
Parnia 2014 13.38 (9.70 to 17.06) <0.001 75.7 <0.001
Genbrugge 2015 14.65 (10.53 to 18.77) <0.001 76.1 <0.001
Singer 2014 14.79 (10.85 to 18.73) <0.001 75.7 <0.001
Parnia 2012 13.94 (10.06 to 17.82) <0.001 78.1 <0.001
Schewe 2014 14.40 (10.68 to 18.13) <0.001 77.9 <0.001
Ibrahim 2015 12.31 (9.83 to 14.78) <0.001 31.4 0.167
Parnia 2016 14.68 (10.56 to 18.79) <0.001 75.2 <0.001
Prosen 2018 13.98 (10.06 to 17.91) <0.001 78.2 <0.001
Singer 2018 14.79 (10.87 to 18.71) <0.001 75.9 <0.001

*rSO2: regional cerebral oxygen saturation; WMD: weighted mean difference.

Table 3. Subgroup analyses for initial rSO2 and mean rSO2.

Outcomes Subgroup WMD and 95% CI P-value Heterogeneity (%) P-value for Meta-regression
Initial rSO2 (%) Publication year
2015 or after 11.86 (4.58 to 19.14) 0.001 88.2 0.057
2015 previous 8.38 (4.16 to 12.59) <0.001 0.0
Study design
Prospective 10.10 (5.66 to 14.55) <0.001 72.1 -
Retrospective - - -
Mean age (years)
≥ 70.0 9.66 (4.33 to 15.00) <0.001 0.0 0.354
< 70.0 10.14 (4.27 to 16.01) 0.001 80.5
Percentage male (%)
≥ 80.0 13.01 (4.19 to 21.83) 0.004 93.7 0.032
< 80.0 8.32 (4.43 to 12.21) <0.001 0.0
Location of cardiac arrest
IH 17.50 (14.45 to 20.55) <0.001 - <0.001
OH 8.78 (6.18 to 11.37) <0.001 0.0
Both 5.16 (-2.80 to 13.13) 0.204 0.0
Study quality
High 10.25 (4.76 to 15.75) <0.001 80.5 0.423
Low 9.70 (3.73 to 15.67) 0.001 0.0
Mean rSO2 (%) Publication year
2015 or after 13.67 (8.53 to 18.82) <0.001 85.9 0.632
2015 previous 14.84 (9.29 to 20.39) <0.001 52.1
Study design
Prospective 13.62 (9.28 to 17.96) <0.001 79.4 0.556
Retrospective 16.17 (7.12 to 25.21) <0.001 72.9
Mean age (years)
≥ 70.0 15.19 (8.03 to 22.35) <0.001 57.8 0.377
< 70.0 13.74 (9.03 to 18.46) <0.001 82.7
Percentage male (%)
≥ 80.0 14.68 (7.07 to 22.28) <0.001 81.7 0.002
< 80.0 12.55 (9.16 to 15.95) <0.001 52.7
Location of cardiac arrest
IH 17.81 (10.97 to 24.66) <0.001 85.0 0.001
OH 10.63 (8.13 to 13.13) <0.001 0.0
Both 15.50 (8.93 to 22.07) <0.001 -
Study quality
High 13.94 (9.48 to 18.41) <0.001 82.4 0.444
Low 14.83 (6.92 to 22.74) <0.001 62.1

*IH: in-hospital arrests; OH: out-of-hospital arrests; rSO2: regional cerebral oxygen saturation; WMD: weighted mean difference.

Mean rSO2

The summary results of a total of 10 studies were pooled to analyze the correlation between mean rSO2 and ROSC, and WMD indicated that ROSC was associated with greater mean rSO2 levels as compared to the non-ROSC (WMD: 14.16%; 95% CI: 10.51–17.81; P<0.001; Fig 3). Although substantial heterogeneity across the included studies was detected (I2: 75.6%; P<0.001), the conclusion was not affected by the sequential exclusion of each study from the overall analysis (Table 2). The results of meta-regression analyses indicated that the percentage of males (P = 0.002) and the location of cardiac arrest (P = 0.001) significantly influenced the correlation between median rSO2 and ROSC. Also, the subgroup analysis indicated a significant association among all the subsets based on pre-defined factors (Table 3).

Fig 3. Association of the mean rSO2 level with the incidence of the return of spontaneous circulation.

Fig 3

Publication bias

The funnel plots were reviewed, and the potential for publication bias for initial (Fig 4A) and mean rSO2 levels (Fig 4B) was not excluded. The Egger and Begg tests results did not show any evidence of publication bias for initial rSO2 (P-value for Egger: 0.258; P-value for Begg: 0.764) and mean rSO2 levels (P-value for Egger: 0.827; P-value for Begg: 0.210).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Funnel plots for initial rSO2 (A) and mean rSO2 (B) levels.

Discussion

The survival rate of CA patients is low, and hence, the prediction role of initial and mean rSO2 should be explored. Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive association of initial and mean rSO2; however, whether these correlations differ according to the study (publication year, study design, and study quality) or patients' (mean age, sex, and location of cardiac arrest) characteristics are yet to be elucidated. In this comprehensive quantitative meta-analysis, 678 CA patients from 13 studies with a broad range of characteristics were included. The summary results indicated that ROSC vs. non-ROSC was significantly associated with high initial and mean rSO2 levels. Furthermore, these correlations might be influenced by the percentage of males and the location of cardiac arrest. Finally, a significant association was noted in all the subsets except for the study that included both IH and OH CA patients.

The summary result indicated ROSC patients with high initial rSO2 level, while 3/7 studies reported inconsistent results. Ahn et al. demonstrated that a critical role of cerebral oximetry on ROSC in asystole and pulseless electrical activity patients, while no significant association occurred in shockable patients [26]. The study pointed out that ROSC could not achieve successful defibrillation or chemical cardioversion in patients with refractory shock [39,40]. Genbrugge et al. did not establish a significant correlation between ROSC and initial rSO2 level (P = 0.07) [28], and this phenomenon could be interpreted as the short duration between the emergency call and the start of advanced life support associated with a high initial rSO2 value. Genbrugge et al. [41] reported the results of the Copernicus I study and showed that rSO2 could be used during pre-hospital advanced life support as a marker to predict the return of spontaneous circulation; an increase in rSO2 of at least 15% predicted the return of spontaneous circulation. Meex et al. included 14 patients and found that the initial rSO2 value could not predict the mortality [33]. Although these studies did not report any significant associations between ROSC and initial rSO2 values, an increase in the rSO2 values in ROSC patients was observed in all the included studies.

The summary result indicated a positive correlation between ROSC and mean rSO2 values, and almost all the included studies reported similar conclusions. Schewe et al. did not show a significant association between ROSC and rSO2 value, which might be attributed to a small number of patients included in the study [34]. The ROSC in patients was closely related to oxygen delivery and circulation, and thus, exhibited a significant improvement in the quality of CPR [42,43]. Furthermore, cerebral oximetry could predict ROSC, and cerebral perfusion during CPR was associated with significant improvement in brain oxygenation and the subsequent survival and neurological outcomes. Finally, the rSO2 value was correlated with the quality of CPR during CA and ROSC or survival during resuscitation [44,45].

Subgroup analyses indicated significant associations between rSO2 values and ROSC in all the subsets, while the results of meta-regression suggested that these correlations might be affected by gender and the location of cardiac arrest. The phenomenon could be ascribed to less mortality in females than males in CA survivors who received therapeutic hypothermia (P = 0.03) [46]. Furthermore, the location of cardiac arrest included IH and OH with various intervals between the emergency call and start of the advanced life support, which could affect the incidence of ROSC. Finally, these results might be variable due to the small number of studies in the corresponding subsets.

Nevertheless, the present meta-analysis has several highlights. First, the large sample size and comprehensive search provided robust results than any individual study. Second, the subgroup analyses for these associations assessed whether these correlations differed according to the publication year, study design, mean age, percentage of males, the location of cardiac arrest, and study quality. The limitations of this study were as follows: (1) several included studies had a retrospective design, which might introduce selection and recall biases; (2) potential publication bias might exist due to the meta-analysis based on the published studies; (3) this analysis was based on pooled data, and detailed calculations were not conducted as individual datasets were not available; (4) a subgroup analysis for the device used could not be performed because the number of different devices was too large and the number of studies for some devices was too small for a reliable analysis; and (5) not all studies report the same outcomes, and the reported data have to be analyzable in the context of a meta-analysis; therefore, we had to select the variables that were the most consistently reported among the included studies and had clinical meaning.

Conclusions

Taken together, the findings of this study suggest that high initial or mean rSO2 value could predict the incidence of ROSC in CA patients. The strength of these associations was greater in males and IH patients than the corresponding subsets. However, a further large-scale prospective study should be conducted to verify the potential difference in gender and the location of cardiac arrest.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist

(DOC)

S1 Flow diagram

(DOC)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Taelman J, Vandeput S, Spaepen A, Huffel SV (2009) Influence of Mental Stress on Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1366–1369 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Petek BJ, Bennett DN, Ngo C, Chan PS, Nallamothu BK, et al. (2019) Reexamination of the UN10 Rule to Discontinue Resuscitation During In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. JAMA Netw Open 2: e194941 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, et al. (2016) Executive Summary: Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation 133: 447–454. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Laver S, Farrow C, Turner D, Nolan J (2004) Mode of death after admission to an intensive care unit following cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med 30: 2126–2128. 10.1007/s00134-004-2425-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dragancea I, Rundgren M, Englund E, Friberg H, Cronberg T (2013) Dragancea I, Rundgren M, Englund E, et al. The influence of induced hypothermia and delayed prognostication on the mode of death after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 84: 337–342. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Horn M, Schlote W (1992) Delayed neuronal death and delayed neuronal recovery in the human brain following global ischemia. Acta Neuropathologica 85: 79–87. 10.1007/BF00304636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Petito CK, Feldmann E, Pulsinelli WA, Plum F (1987) Delayed hippocampal damage in humans following cardiorespiratory arrest. Neurology 37: 1281–1286. 10.1212/wnl.37.8.1281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dragancea I, Wise MP, Al-Subaie N, Cranshaw J, Friberg H, et al. (2017) Protocol-driven neurological prognostication and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy after cardiac arrest and targeted temperature management. Resuscitation 117: 50 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.05.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mulder M, Gibbs HG, Smith SW, Dhaliwal R, Scott NL, et al. (2014) Awakening and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in cardiac arrest survivors treated with therapeutic hypothermia*. Critical Care Medicine 42: 2493 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cournoyer A, Iseppon M, Chauny JM, Denault A, Cossette S, et al. (2016) Near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring during cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Emergency Medicine Official Journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 23: 851–862. 10.1111/acem.12980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ito N, Nishiyama K, Callaway CW, Orita T, Hayashida K, et al. (2014) Non-invasive regional cerebral oxygen saturation for neurological prognostication of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A prospective multicenter observational study. Resuscitation 85: 778–784. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Murkin JM, Adams SJ, Novick RJ, Mackenzie Q, Daniel B, et al. (2007) Monitoring brain oxygen saturation during coronary bypass surgery: a randomized, prospective study. Anesthesia & Analgesia 104: 51–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Denault A, Deschamps A, Jm (2007) A proposed algorithm for the intraoperative use of cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 11: 274–281. 10.1177/1089253207311685 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Van BF, Lemmers P, Naulaers G (2008) Monitoring neonatal regional cerebral oxygen saturation in clinical practice: value and pitfalls. Neonatology 94: 237–244. 10.1159/000151642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sanfilippo F, Serena G, Corredor C, Benedetto U, Maybauer MO, et al. (2015) Cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis ☆. Resuscitation 94: 67–72. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.06.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Jama 283: 2008–2012. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. (2009) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm.: Ottawa (ON): Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7: 177–188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JP (2005) The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making 25: 646–654. 10.1177/0272989X05282643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D (2008) Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses; Higgins J GS, eds, editor. UK: The Cochrane Collaboration. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 327: 557–560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tobias A (1999) Assessing the influence of a single study in meta-analysis. Stata Tech Bull 47: 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21: 1559–1573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj 315: 629–634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ahn A, Nasir A, Malik H, D'Orazi F, Parnia S (2013) A pilot study examining the role of regional cerebral oxygen saturation monitoring as a marker of return of spontaneous circulation in shockable (VF/VT) and non-shockable (PEA/Asystole) causes of cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 84: 1713–1716. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.07.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Parnia S, Nasir A, Ahn A, Malik H, Yang J, et al. (2014) A feasibility study of cerebral oximetry during in-hospital mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 42: 930–933. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Genbrugge C, Meex I, Boer W, Jans F, Heylen R, et al. (2015) Increase in cerebral oxygenation during advanced life support in out-of-hospital patients is associated with return of spontaneous circulation. Crit Care 19: 112 10.1186/s13054-015-0837-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Singer AJ, Ahn A, Inigo-Santiago LA, Thode HC Jr., Henry MC, et al. (2015) Cerebral oximetry levels during CPR are associated with return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: an observational study. Emerg Med J 32: 353–356. 10.1136/emermed-2013-203467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fukuda T, Ohashi N, Nishida M, Gunshin M, Doi K, et al. (2014) Application of cerebral oxygen saturation to prediction of the futility of resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest patients: a single-center, prospective, observational study: can cerebral regional oxygen saturation predict the futility of CPR? Am J Emerg Med 32: 747–751. 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.02.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Koyama Y, Wada T, Lohman BD, Takamatsu Y, Matsumoto J, et al. (2013) A new method to detect cerebral blood flow waveform in synchrony with chest compression by near-infrared spectroscopy during CPR. Am J Emerg Med 31: 1504–1508. 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Parnia S, Nasir A, Shah C, Patel R, Mani A, et al. (2012) A feasibility study evaluating the role of cerebral oximetry in predicting return of spontaneous circulation in cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 83: 982–985. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.01.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Meex I, De Deyne C, Dens J, Scheyltjens S, Lathouwers K, et al. (2013) Feasibility of absolute cerebral tissue oxygen saturation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care 17: R36 10.1186/cc12546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schewe JC, Thudium MO, Kappler J, Steinhagen F, Eichhorn L, et al. (2014) Monitoring of cerebral oxygen saturation during resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a feasibility study in a physician staffed emergency medical system. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 22: 58 10.1186/s13049-014-0058-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ibrahim AW, Trammell AR, Austin H, Barbour K, Onuorah E, et al. (2015) Cerebral Oximetry as a Real-Time Monitoring Tool to Assess Quality of In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Post Cardiac Arrest Care. J Am Heart Assoc 4: e001859 10.1161/JAHA.115.001859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Parnia S, Yang J, Nguyen R, Ahn A, Zhu J, et al. (2016) Cerebral Oximetry During Cardiac Arrest: A Multicenter Study of Neurologic Outcomes and Survival. Crit Care Med 44: 1663–1674. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001723 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Prosen G, Strnad M, Doniger SJ, Markota A, Stozer A, et al. (2018) Cerebral tissue oximetry levels during pre-hospital management of cardiac arrest—A prospective observational study. Resuscitation 129: 141–145. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.05.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Singer AJ, Nguyen RT, Ravishankar ST, Schoenfeld ER, Thode HC Jr., et al. (2018) Cerebral oximetry versus end tidal CO2 in predicting ROSC after cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med 36: 403–407. 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.08.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Eilevstjonn J, Kramer-Johansen J, Sunde K (2007) Shock outcome is related to prior rhythm and duration of ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation 75: 60–67. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jacobs IG, Finn JC, Oxer HF, Jelinek GA (2005) CPR before defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. Emerg Med Australas 17: 39–45. 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2005.00694.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Genbrugge C, De Deyne C, Eertmans W, Anseeuw K, Voet D, et al. (2018) Cerebral saturation in cardiac arrest patients measured with near-infrared technology during pre-hospital advanced life support. Results from Copernicus I cohort study. Resuscitation 129: 107–113. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.03.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kudenchuk PJ, Redshaw JD, Stubbs BA, Fahrenbruch CE, Dumas F, et al. (2012) Impact of changes in resuscitation practice on survival and neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resulting from nonshockable arrhythmias. Circulation 125: 1787–1794. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.064873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Vaillancourt C, Everson-Stewart S, Christenson J, Andrusiek D, Powell J, et al. (2011) The impact of increased chest compression fraction on return of spontaneous circulation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients not in ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation 82: 1501–1507. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mullner M, Sterz F, Binder M, Hirschl MM, Janata K, et al. (1995) Near infrared spectroscopy during and after cardiac arrest—preliminary results. Clin Intensive Care 6: 107–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Nagdyman N, Fleck TP, Ewert P, Abdul-Khaliq H, Redlin M, et al. (2003) Cerebral oxygenation measured by near-infrared spectroscopy during circulatory arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Br J Anaesth 91: 438–442. 10.1093/bja/aeg181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Greenberg MR, Ahnert AM, Patel NC, Bennett CE, Elliott N, et al. (2014) Sex differences in cardiac arrest survivors who receive therapeutic hypothermia. Am J Emerg Med 32: 545–548. 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Steve Lin

20 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-30622

Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers and I have several issues with the study's analysis of rSO2 data. Please refer to the specific comments below.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by January 31, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide any updates you might have since the original search was performed in May 2018, or please provide the rational for ending your search at that time.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript. The authors were challenged to write a coherent story with the diverse data of cerebral oxygenation during cardiac arrest.

However I have a few comments.

In the abstract the authors write in the first sentence that the initial and mean rSO2 play a role in the efficiency of CPR. However it is impossible that an initial value as also the mean values, which is generated posthoc can influence the quality of CPR. The authors should adapt this sentence.

What do the authors mean with patients status in the abstract and further in the manuscript? In the Tables it is the location of the cardiac arrest. The authors should indicate this in the abstract and the first time they mention this in the manuscript.

The authors make a difference between OHCA and IHCA patients however they should also investigate the moment of measurements. As in some studies, cerebral oxygenation is measured pre-hospital, sometimes at the ED of OHCA, sometimes In hospital at the place of arrest or at the ED once the IHCA patient is brought to the ED. You can expect differences in saturation values as the time between cardiac arrest and start of measurements is different. Do the authors analyzed the data categorized following the moment of measurement OH or IH?

The authors write that cardiac arrest is a disease however they should adapt this as it is an acute endpoint of many diseases.

Line 41: the authors give a survival rate of 6,3% however they don't give any reference. Can they add a reference?

Line 52: this sentence should be adapted as none of the other studies until today could associate rSO2 and neurological outcome.

Line 53: rSO2 is not widely used pre-operative.

Line 59: what do they mean with specific characteristics?

The authors should also search under near infra red spectroscopy.

How and why was decided to use initial and mean rSO2 values?

Are the authors sure they included all manuscript about cerebral saturation and cardiac arrest during they research period? A recent study was published by Genbrugge et al. using cerebral oximetry in CA patients. Why was this study excluded? Why are the studies of Ito et al. excluded?

On what is the subgroep analysis based?

Did the authors also investigated the different devices used to measure rSO2? As some devices measure until 0 other have a higher cut off point. This can influence in the calculated mean values and initial values as some devices for example indicate 15 for all values below 15

Reviewer #2: Interesting paper, a few things for the authors to consider:

-All results should be separated based on prospective vs. retrospective and in-hospital vs out-of-hospital throughout the entire paper as it is not ideal to perform statistics combining these groups

-In your methods, describe what the term 'patient status' means, as this is a very general term

-More detail is needed in the statistical analysis section to describe what you mean by 'subgroup analysis' and 'meta-regression analysis' as these terms alone don't convey what you are specifically addressing with these analyses (i.e. what outcomes are you looking at)

-Instead of saying the relationships can be biased by 'percentage of males', it would be better to state they are influenced by gender. Additionally, if gender does influence the results, it would be beneficial to add a table that specifically separates results for males and females if this data is available.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Cornelia Genbrugge

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0234979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234979.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Jan 2020

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-19-30622

Title: Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal: PLOS ONE

Response to Reviewers' comments

Dear Editor,

We thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript. We appreciate your response and overall positive initial feedback and made modifications to improve the manuscript. After carefully reviewing the comments made by the Reviewers, we have modified the manuscript to improve the presentation of our results and their discussion, therefore providing a complete context for the research that may be of interest to your readers.

We hope that you will find the revised paper suitable for publication, and we look forward to contributing to your journal. Please do not hesitate to contact us with other questions or concerns regarding the manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer #1

In the abstract the authors write in the first sentence that the initial and mean rSO2 play a role in the efficiency of CPR. However it is impossible that an initial value as also the mean values, which is generated posthoc can influence the quality of CPR. The authors should adapt this sentence.

Response: We are sorry for this. We meant "regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2)".

What do the authors mean with patients status in the abstract and further in the manuscript? In the Tables it is the location of the cardiac arrest. The authors should indicate this in the abstract and the first time they mention this in the manuscript.

Response: The Reviewer is right. It was corrected accordingly.

The authors make a difference between OHCA and IHCA patients however they should also investigate the moment of measurements. As in some studies, cerebral oxygenation is measured pre-hospital, sometimes at the ED of OHCA, sometimes In hospital at the place of arrest or at the ED once the IHCA patient is brought to the ED. You can expect differences in saturation values as the time between cardiac arrest and start of measurements is different. Do the authors analyze the data categorized following the moment of measurement OH or IH?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. As this was a meta-analysis, we had to work with the data available from the previous papers. As such, unfortunately, we could not perform the analysis suggested by the Reviewer.

The authors write that cardiac arrest is a disease however they should adapt this as it is an acute endpoint of many diseases.

Response: We agree with the Reviewer. It was edited as suggested.

Line 41: the authors give a survival rate of 6,3% however they don't give any reference. Can they add a reference?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this kind reminding, a reference was added.

Line 52: this sentence should be adapted as none of the other studies until today could associate rSO2 and neurological outcome.

Response: We agree with the Reviewer. It was edited.

Line 53: rSO2 is not widely used pre-operative.

Response: We agree with the Reviewer. It was edited.

Line 59: what do they mean with specific characteristics?

Response: We thank the Reviewer. We meant patients with different characteristics. It was corrected.

The authors should also search under near infra red spectroscopy.

Response: We thank the Reviewer. This keyword was not included in our original protocol. Nevertheless, we made verification, and it did not yield additional eligible studies.

How and why was decided to use initial and mean rSO2 values?

Response: The present study was a meta-analysis of published studies. We used the data available from those studies.

Are the authors sure they included all manuscript about cerebral saturation and cardiac arrest during they research period? A recent study was published by Genbrugge et al. using cerebral oximetry in CA patients. Why was this study excluded? Why are the studies of Ito et al. excluded?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. We performed the search in May 2018. The study by Genbrugge et al. was published in August 2018. The studies by Ito et al. were not included because they did not match the inclusion criteria.

On what is the subgroup analysis based?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. Subgroup analyses are often used in meta-analyses in order to determine whether some factors (e.g., publication year, study type, characteristics of the patients, etc.) could influence the results.

Did the authors also investigated the different devices used to measure rSO2? As some devices measure until 0 other have a higher cut off point. This can influence in the calculated mean values and initial values as some devices for example indicate 15 for all values below 15

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. Unfortunately, the number of different devices was too large, and the number of studies for some devices was too small for a reliable analysis. This will have to be examined in a future study with a different study design to try to include as many papers as possible for each device. This was included as a limitation.

Reviewer #2

-All results should be separated based on prospective vs. retrospective and in-hospital vs out-of-hospital throughout the entire paper as it is not ideal to perform statistics combining these groups

Response: We agree with the Reviewer that combining the two types of studies is not ideal, but it is a limitation of many meta-analyses. Nevertheless, the results of the meta-regression (Table 3) show that the study type did not influence the outcome of the meta-analysis. Perhaps when additional studies have been published, we will be able to perform a meta-analysis specifically for prospective and retrospective studies. This is already included in the Limitations.

-In your methods, describe what the term 'patient status' means, as this is a very general term

Response: We thank the Reviewer. We meant "the location of the cardiac arrest". It was clarified throughout the manuscript.

-More detail is needed in the statistical analysis section to describe what you mean by 'subgroup analysis' and 'meta-regression analysis' as these terms alone don't convey what you are specifically addressing with these analyses (i.e. what outcomes are you looking at)

Response: We thank the Reviewer. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to determine whether the characteristics of the studies and populations of patients influenced the conclusion of the meta-analysis [1]. The subgroup analyses were based on the publication year, study design, mean age, the percentage of males, the location of cardiac arrest, and study quality.

-Instead of saying the relationships can be biased by 'percentage of males', it would be better to state they are influenced by gender. Additionally, if gender does influence the results, it would be beneficial to add a table that specifically separates results for males and females if this data is available.

Response: We thank the Reviewer. The statement was edited accordingly. As for the data, we could not extract the separate data by sex from the included studies.

References

1. Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21: 1559-1573.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Steve Lin

13 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-30622R1

Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous ci rculation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by April 30th. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for taking the time to submit revisions. Howver some facts are still not clear.

Sentence 169: a word is missing

How was decided to use publication year, study type,...in the subgroup analysis? What do the authors mean with characteristics of the patient? Can they be more precise?

The study by Genbrugge et al. was published online in March (see Pubmed)

Why do the authors not use mean rSO2 during the last 5mins? Increase of rSO2 during CPR? Mean of the first min of rSO2 in their analysis? The answer provided we used the data available from those studies insufficient as some studies do present these data. How did the authors decided not to includ these data? They should mention this in the limitations of this study?

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed my original concerns.

1) There are just a few grammatical issues to address:

-Lines 58-61: Please break into 2 sentences, for example: "A previous meta-analysis based on 9 studies found that the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in CA patients is associated with high initial and average rSO2. Whether or not these correlations varied among patients with different characteristics are not yet illustrated

-Lines 80-81: Please add the word "and" in between "search" and "selected"

-Lines 186: Please change the word "was" to "is"

-Line 244: Please change the word "indicated" to "suggest" as it is overall a fairly weak correlation with low quality of evidence

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0234979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234979.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 Mar 2020

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-19-30622R1

Title: Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal: PLOS ONE

Response to Reviewers' comments

Dear Editor,

We thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript. We appreciate your response and overall positive feedback and made modifications to improve the manuscript.

We hope that you will find the revised paper suitable for publication, and we look forward to contributing to your journal. Please do not hesitate to contact us with other questions or concerns regarding the manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer #1

Sentence 169: a word is missing

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. It was corrected, and the manuscript was proofread.

How was decided to use publication year, study type,...in the subgroup analysis? What do the authors mean with characteristics of the patient? Can they be more precise?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. We added to the Methods: “The subgroup analyses were based on the publication year (this could be a confounder because of the changes in practice and guidelines over time), study design (prospective trials have more power than retrospective studies), mean age (age might influence cerebral oximetry and the outcomes of cardiac arrest), sex (males usually have worst cardiac outcomes than females), the location of cardiac arrest (cardiac arrests occurring at the hospital will be managed more promptly than those occurring outside), and study quality (study and data quality might affect the quality of the analyses and conclusions).” The patient characteristics were clarified.

The study by Genbrugge et al. was published online in March (see Pubmed)

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. We added this study to the discussion, but it was included in the analyses since it was published outside the study period.

Why do the authors not use mean rSO2 during the last 5mins? Increase of rSO2 during CPR? Mean of the first min of rSO2 in their analysis? The answer provided we used the data available from those studies insufficient as some studies do present these data. How did the authors decided not to includ these data? They should mention this in the limitations of this study?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. Not all studies report the same outcomes, and the reported data have to be analyzable in the context of a meta-analysis. Therefore, we had to select the variables that were the most consistently reported among the included studies and had clinical meaning. This was added as a limitation.

Reviewer #2

1) There are just a few grammatical issues to address:

-Lines 58-61: Please break into 2 sentences, for example: "A previous meta-analysis based on 9 studies found that the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in CA patients is associated with high initial and average rSO2. Whether or not these correlations varied among patients with different characteristics are not yet illustrated

-Lines 80-81: Please add the word "and" in between "search" and "selected"

-Lines 186: Please change the word "was" to "is"

-Line 244: Please change the word "indicated" to "suggest" as it is overall a fairly weak correlation with low quality of evidence

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. Those corrections were made and the manuscript was proofread.

Decision Letter 2

Steve Lin

23 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-30622R2

Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous ci rculation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and making the necessary revisions for publication. There is one minor comment and suggestion from a reviewer that we ask you to address before your manuscript can be accepted for publication.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 8, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your answers. I still have one question.

In line 213 and further the authors added two sentences using a reference that is not about cardiac arrest patients. They should delete these sentences as they don't have have an added value for the discussion.

The authors replied that they added the study of Genbrugge et al. in the discussion and not in the analyses as it was published outside the study period. However the study period was until may 2018 and the manuscript was published in March 2018. As the number of included patients in that study is quiet big I think this is a methodological mistake of the authors if it was not included initially and I understand that it is a lot of work to redo the analyses. However at least they can add this to the disccusion as also the manuscript. The authors replied they added this manuscript to the disccusion however I don't find this. So can they pleas adjust this?

(Resuscitation. 2018 Aug;129:107-113. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.03.031. Epub 2018 MAR23 (!!!!) .Cerebral saturation in cardiac arrest patients measured with near-infrared technology during pre-hospital advanced life support. Results from Copernicus I cohort study. Genbrugge C1, De Deyne C2, Eertmans W3, Anseeuw K4, Voet D5, Mertens I6, Sabbe M7, Stroobants J8, Bruckers L9, Mesotten D10, Jans F11, Boer W12, Dens J13.)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0234979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234979.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


11 May 2020

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-19-30622R3

Title: Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal: PLOS ONE

Response to Reviewers' comments

Dear Editor,

We thank you for your careful consideration of our manuscript. We appreciate your response and overall positive feedback and made modifications to improve the manuscript.

We hope that you will find the revised paper suitable for publication, and we look forward to contributing to your journal. Please do not hesitate to contact us with other questions or concerns regarding the manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer #1

In line 213 and further the authors added two sentences using a reference that is not about cardiac arrest patients. They should delete these sentences as they don't have have an added value for the discussion.

Response: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. Those two sentences were deleted.

The authors replied that they added the study of Genbrugge et al. in the discussion and not in the analyses as it was published outside the study period. However the study period was until may 2018 and the manuscript was published in March 2018. As the number of included patients in that study is quiet big I think this is a methodological mistake of the authors if it was not included initially and I understand that it is a lot of work to redo the analyses. However at least they can add this to the disccusion as also the manuscript. The authors replied they added this manuscript to the disccusion however I don't find this. So can they pleas adjust this?

(Resuscitation. 2018 Aug;129:107-113. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.03.031. Epub 2018 MAR23 (!!!!) .Cerebral saturation in cardiac arrest patients measured with near-infrared technology during pre-hospital advanced life support. Results from Copernicus I cohort study. Genbrugge C1, De Deyne C2, Eertmans W3, Anseeuw K4, Voet D5, Mertens I6, Sabbe M7, Stroobants J8, Bruckers L9, Mesotten D10, Jans F11, Boer W12, Dens J13.)

Response: Again, we thank the Reviewer for the comment. We agree that the epub date is before May 2018, but the actual publication was in August 2018. Because access to the Internet is not as free and easy in China as it can be in other countries, there might be a lag in access to the latest data, and we might have to wait for the paper versions, in some cases. We agree that it would add much to our meta-analysis in terms of patient numbers, but we added it in the Discussion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Decision Letter 3

Steve Lin

8 Jun 2020

Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-19-30622R3

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Steve Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all my concerns however in a next manuscript they should verify if they included all published articles and if not they should justify in the limitation or discussion why not.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Steve Lin

19 Aug 2020

PONE-D-19-30622R3

Association between cerebral oximetry and return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Liu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Steve Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist

    (DOC)

    S1 Flow diagram

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES