SynthesisCardiology journal2025
Conventional versus hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for pediatrics with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in pediatric populations is a rare yet critical medical emergency characterized by high mortality and significant neurological impairment among survivors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesize existing evidence on pediatric resuscitation techniques, focusing on survival rates, neurological outcomes, and the effectiveness of chest compression-only resuscitation (HCPR) versus standard resuscitation (CCPR), thereby addressing current gaps in clinical understanding and informing future guidelines.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for trials comparing HCPR versus CCPR during pediatric resuscitation. We used a comparative meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratio of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-month survival rate, and survival with favorable neurological outcome. Study level odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using random effects.
resultsPrehospital ROSC incidence did not significantly differ between HCPR and CCPR, including subgroup analysis based on cause of cardiac arrest. One-month survival rate was 12.3% in HCPR and 18.0% in CCPR (p = 0.04). Additionally, HCPR was less effective in non-cardiac arrest cases and in children over one year of age. Favorable neurological outcomes at one month were also lower for HCPR (6.3%) compared to CCPR (9.0%; p < 0.001), with similar trends observed across subgroups of non-cardiac arrest origin and varying age groups.
conclusionsA pediatric resuscitation technique based solely on chest compressions shows lower efficacy in terms of survival at one month and quality of return of neurological function compared to standard resuscitation.
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.