Skip to main content

Table 2 Description of included studies

From: The offering of family presence during resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author, year Study design Study location Sample size Population description Study intervention Primary outcomes reported Other findings Risk of bias assessment
Adult studies
Jabre et al. 2013 [9] Cluster RCT France FPDR 266, 304 control 570 relatives of patients in cardiac arrest, including traumatic arrest Systematically offering family opportunity to be present during CPR with chaperone vs. usual care • Patient mortality (prehospital/ER and 28 day)   Low risk of bias (Cochrane)
• Duration of resuscitation
• Family member symptoms of anxiety (3 months)
• Family member symptoms of depression (3 months)
Holzhauser et al. 2006 [11] Single-center RCT Australia FPDR 60, 39 control Adult family members of adult, non-trauma patients undergoing resuscitation in the emergency department Family members randomized in 2:1 fashion to systematic offering of FPDR with chaperone vs. usual care • patient mortality (prehospital/ER) Association between family members who participated in FPDR and belief that their presence was beneficial to the patient Low risk of bias (Cochrane)
Robinson et al. 1998 [10] Single-center RCT UK 13 FPDR, 12 usual care Consecutive adult patients undergoing resuscitation in the emergency department for cardiac arrest or trauma Randomized in 1:1 fashion to systematic offering of FPDR with accompaniment with a chaperone vs. no systematic offering of FPDR with chaperone • Patient mortality (prehospital/ER)   Moderate risk of bias (Cochrane)
• Family member symptoms of anxiety (3 months, 9 months)
• Family member symptoms of depression (3 months, 9 months)
Pediatric studies
Dudley et al. 2009 [12] RCT USA 283 intervention; 422 control 1229 pediatric patients undergoing trauma resuscitation; 283 witnessed resuscitation; 422 did not Families on even days randomized to systematic offering of family presence during trauma resuscitation with trained social workers as support personnel vs. waiting outside of trauma room with supportive social worker present • Patient mortality (hospital discharge) No differences in success rate of critical interventions. Health care providers surveyed believe there was minimal effect on resuscitation. Families surveyed were strongly supportive and believed their presence to be beneficial to the patients High risk of bias (Cochrane)
• Duration of resuscitation
• Time until critical event (CT scan)
  1. RCT randomized controlled trial, FPDR family presence during resuscitation, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ER emergency room, CT computed tomography