ReviewResuscitation plus2022
Lay rescuer use of automated external defibrillators in infants, children and adolescents: A systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Automated External Defibrillator Pad Application Before EMS Arrival in Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- The impact of public access defibrillation on outcomes for children experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a 25-year retrospective study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Automated external defibrillator (AED) use is increasing, but use in children is uncommon. A growing literature of use in children by lay rescuers warrants review. Objective: A systematic review of AED effectiveness in children experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Study Selection: Children, ages 0-18, experiencing OHCA with an AED applied by a lay rescuer. Control population: children with no AED application. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts of references identified by the search strategy, then generated a subset which all authors reviewed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Critical outcomes were survival with Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 at hospital discharge or 30 days and survival to hospital discharge. Results: Population: age categories: <1 year, 1-12 years, 13-18 years. Lay rescuer AED application resulted in improved survival with CPC 1-2 at hospital discharge or 30 days to hospital discharge in age groups 1-12 and 13-18 years (RR 3.84 [95 % CI 2.69-5.5], RR 3.75 [95 %CI 2.97-4.72]), respectively and hospital discharge in both groups(RR 3.04 [95 % CI 2.18-4.25], RR 3.38 [95 % CI 2.17-4.16]), respectively. AED use with CPR improved CPC 1-2 at hospital discharge and hospital discharge (RR 1.49 [95 % CI 1.11-1.97], RR 1.55[1.12-2.12]). Conclusions: AED application by lay rescuers is associated with improved survival with a CPC of 1-2 at 30 days, and improved survival to hospital discharge for children 1-18 years. There are limited data for children < 1 year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.