ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Energy doses for paediatric defibrillation in cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
- Electrical stimulation induces differentiation onset consistent with a therapeutic approach in neuroblastoma cells.Scientific reports · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early defibrillation is the foundation of treatment of shockable ventricular arrhythmias (VF, pVT) but optimal energy doses for initial and subsequent shocks in paediatric cardiac arrest remain controversial. Objectives: To assess the use of different energy doses for initial defibrillation in infants, children and adolescents with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT) during cardiac arrest. Methods: A systematic review was performed by the ILCOR Paediatric Life Support Task force. This systematic review was prospectively registered as PROSPERO CRD42024548898. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) was performed for clinical trials and observational studies, published before 1 January 2025, involving cardiac defibrillation in infants and children (excluding newborn infants) in cardiac arrest. Investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I framework. Critical outcomes included survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation. Results were compiled into a Summary of Findings table using the GRADEpro Guideline Development tool. Statistical calculations and Forest plot generation were performed using RevMan. Results: We identified 7 relevant observational studies. The majority of studies involved in-hospital cardiac arrest. The overall certainty of evidence was very low. Critical (survival to hospital discharge, return of spontaneous circulation) and important (termination of VF/pVT) outcomes were not significantly better or worse when initial defibrillation doses of <1.5 J/kg or >2.5 J/kg were used for children in cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm compared with initial doses approximating 2 J/kg. Conclusions: The current available data suggest that outcomes are not significantly better or worse when initial defibrillation doses of <1.5 J/kg or >2.5 J/kg are used for children in cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm (VF or pVT) compared with initial doses approximating 2 J/kg. 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.