Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of intraosseous (IO) access on resuscitation outcomes, as compared to intravenous (IV) administration, is subject to ongoing debate. This review aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the methodological, reporting, and evidence quality of existing Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses (SRs/MAs) on IO use during resuscitation. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a strategic literature search to identify pertinent SRs/MAs published up until May 6th, 2023. After an extensive screening process, 4 SRs/MAs were included for review. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool for assessing methodological quality, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for evaluating reporting quality, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework for examining the quality of evidence. RESULTS: The assessment revealed high methodological quality across all the included SRs/MAs but showed significant variability in the quality of evidence. The studies offered conflicting findings on the impact of IO access on resuscitation outcomes such as return of spontaneous circulation, survival rates at hospital discharge, and favorable neurological outcomes. Some studies suggested an association of IO access with poorer outcomes, while others indicated no significant difference between IO and IV routes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perceived utility of IO access when IV access is unachievable, the impact of IO on survival, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurological outcomes remains ambiguous due to the inconsistency in the existing evidence. This review underscores the critical need for more rigorous and consistent primary research in this area to strengthen clinical guidelines and improve patient outcomes.