ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Advanced airway interventions for paediatric cardiac arrest: updated systematic review and
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Singapore Paediatric Life Support Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026Guideline
- Advanced airway interventions for paediatric cardiac arrest: updated systematic review andResuscitation plus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Airway management is vital in paediatric resuscitation, especially since respiratory conditions are frequently the primary cause of paediatric cardiac arrest. Placement of an advanced airway device may facilitate more effective resuscitation than bag-mask ventilation but requires more skilled personnel and the time taken to perform the procedure may interfere with other vital components of resuscitation. Objectives: To assess the use of advanced airway interventions, tracheal intubation (TI) or supraglottic airway (SGA) placement, compared with bag mask ventilation (BMV) alone for resuscitation of children in cardiac arrest. Data sources: This was an update to a previous systematic review performed by ILCOR. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted for suitable studies published before 1 January 2025. This systematic review was registered as PROSPERO CRD42023482459. Study eligibility: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised comparison studies involving airway interventions (BMV, TI, SGA) in infants and children (excluding newborn infants) in cardiac arrest in any setting were included. Study appraisal & synthesis: Investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 and CLARITY frameworks. Critically important outcomes included survival to hospital discharge and survival with good neurological outcome. Results: We identified 20 suitable studies (13 from the original systematic review and 7 from the updated search), including 1 pseudorandomised clinical trial, 6 observational cohort studies using propensity matching, and 9 simple cohort studies suitable for Conclusions: There is currently no supporting evidence that an advanced airway (supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation) during CPR improves survival or survival with a good neurological outcome after paediatric cardiac arrest in any setting when compared with bag-mask ventilation.Well-designed randomised trials are needed to address this important question.
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.