At the Second World Congress on Emergency and Disaster Medicine in Pittsburgh in 1981, Professor Negovsky talked about the Science of Resuscitation. Science is defined as systematic and formulated knowledge. Therefore, to be a science, resuscitation must be presented in accurate and concise terms. The introduction of Standards in the methodology of Resuscitation has achieved this. In 1977, the American Heart Association published Standards for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care (1) and revised them in 1980 as Standards and Guidelines (2). Organizations in other countries have also introduced such standards: the Canadian Heart Foundation, the Heart Foundation of New Zealand, the Australian Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Advisory Council in the United Kingdom; they all have systematic and formulated methodologies. The value of these standards and guidelines in Resuscitation methods can only be gauged by the results of various individual surveys. The definition of Resuscitation as a science runs into problems when one begins to examine these results. This paper will illustrate the difficulties of evaluating Resuscitation results.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of survival rates in5 centers (3-7) when Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) was initiated by a rescue team or a bystander. It would appear that Seattle had the best overall survival rate, followed by Oslo. But Thompson and colleagues (5) from Seattle studied survival from cardiac arrest only when ventricular fibrillation was present when the paramedical personnel arrived. Lund and Skulberg (7) from Oslo did not state their type of victim, whereas Cobb and his colleagues (4) in suburban Seattle, with the lowest survival rates, looked at all forms of cardiac arrests.