“…After data extraction, the reviewers met and reached a consensus on how to categorize the ideas within the articles included. We thus sorted the publication types into subgroups that were most suitable and internationally recognized (even though a specific journal may have classified a publication differently, e.g., “special report”), and thus report on four abstracts, 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 two commentaries, 17 , 18 five editorials, 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ten letters, 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 five concepts, 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 three reviews, 39 , 40 , 41 four statements, 1 , 42 , 43 , 44 six reports of original research, 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 and four guidelines. 4 , 51 , 52 , 53 We further grouped the publications ( Supplementary Table S1 ) into “novel kinds of the concept related to resuscitation” ( n = 8), 1 , 4 , 18 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 49 , 51 “novel kinds of the concept not directly related to resuscitation” ( n = 23), 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , …”