Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40969989›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2025

Real-time ventilation quality feedback devices efficacy in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a scoping review.

Guillaume Debaty, Nicholas J Johnson, Maya Dewan, Laurie J Morrison, Janet E Bray, International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Guillaume DebatyUniv. Grenoble Alpes, Emergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, CNRS, UMR 5525, Grenoble INP, TIMC, 38000 Grenoble, France.
Nicholas J JohnsonDepartment of Emergency Medicine & Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Maya DewanDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Laurie J MorrisonDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Janet E BraySchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Basic Life Support Task Force

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: New devices are now available to provide real-time feedback on ventilation for basic life support providers responding to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This scoping review, conducted as part of the evidence review for the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, aimed to examine the extent of evidence examining ventilation feedback devices and to identify research gaps regarding these devices. Methods: This scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched from database inception to March 13th, 2025. Studies examining real-time ventilation quality feedback in humans and manikins of any design were included. Ventilation feedback devices were defined as any device that can provide information on the delivery of each insufflation (including insufflation and/or exsufflation measured volume as well as rate) and to guide the ventilation through real-time feedback. Results: We screened 794 titles, with 17 studies (including 4 conference abstracts) included: one randomised trial (RCT), one before-after prospective studies, two observational studies, one case series and 12 simulation studies. Only three simulation studies assessed a pediatric scenario. The RCT reported improved early outcomes (unadjusted return of spontaneous circulation and 30-hour survival) with real-time feedback, but no difference at hospital discharge. Two observational studies also found no change in patient outcomes, but noted improved ventilation rate and insufflation volumes. Most simulation studies showed improvements in ventilation parameters. Conclusion: Real-time feedback devices seem to improve ventilations, but we found insufficient evidence of their effect on clinical outcomes to merit a systematic review at this time. Rigorous evaluation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of these devices is needed.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary resuscitationHeart arrestVentilation feedback devices

Identifiers

PMID40969989
PMCPMC12441615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.