ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Characterization of external defibrillator output and its impact on defibrillation protection of medical equipment.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Defibrillators constitute a critical component of emergency care for ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Advances in defibrillation technology point to the potential need for reassessing current requirements for defibrillation protection and associated resuscitation guidelines. Objective: This study aimed to establish reference information for future directions in defibrillator requirements, defibrillation protection requirements, and resuscitation guidelines based on the parameters of commercially available defibrillators. Methods: Defibrillator brands were identified from the registration records of the China National Medical Products Administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the European Database on Medical Devices. Key defibrillation parameters were obtained from publicly available manufacturer documentation. Results: A total of 31 manufacturers and 115 external defibrillators were identified. All studied devices employ biphasic waveforms, with biphasic truncated exponential being the most common, appearing in products from 24 of 31 manufacturers (77.4%). Except for pulsed biphasic devices manufactured by Schiller, maximum output voltages are below 3 kV. Maximum energy limits vary across devices, with some models retaining an upper limit of 360 J. Conclusion: Incorporating biphasic waveforms into defibrillation protection tests may be appropriate. Adjustments to the requirements and guidelines of defibrillation voltage or energy could be considered, depending on market trends and future studies on defibrillation efficacy.
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.