ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Ventilation parameters during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bag size for manual ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult cardiac arrest: a systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging, with limited evidence to guide optimal rates, volumes, and other parameters. This systematic review, part of the continuous evidence evaluation process for the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, examined whether specific tidal volumes, respiratory rates, inspiratory times, or positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improve outcomes. Methods: Studies of adults in any setting (in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) receiving ventilation were included if they compared specific tidal volumes, respiratory rates, inspiratory times, or PEEP. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 10, 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I; certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. Registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251070065). Results: Of 3021 records, 11 studies (3 randomized trials, 8 observational) met eligibility criteria. Certainty of evidence was very low, limited by bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Due to heterogeneity, results were reported narratively using Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. Ventilation rates showed mixed associations with neurological, survival, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) outcomes; some studies indicated harm with lower ventilation rates. Most found no differences between higher and lower tidal volumes, although very low tidal volumes were associated with worse outcomes in some studies. When impedance-detected ventilations occurred in ≥50% of chest compression pauses during 30:2 CPR, survival and ROSC were higher. Conclusion: Evidence on optimal ventilation during CPR is inconsistent and of very low certainty. Very low ventilation rates and tidal volumes may be harmful. Future research should use robust designs to define evidence-based ventilation targets.
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.