ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Mechanical versus manual chest compression in cardiac arrest: 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.
- Mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in traumatic cardiac arrest: a retrospective observational study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is crucial for survival following cardiac arrest. To-date, ILCOR has suggested against routine use of mechanical chest compressions, reserving its use for settings where manual compressions are difficult to continue. Due to awareness of new trial data, this review was conducted to inform international treatment recommendations. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and the registry platform ClinicalTrials.Gov from inception to 21st October 2025. Only randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were included. Critical outcomes of interest were survival with good neurological outcome, survival and quality of life. Important outcomes included ROSC, survival to hospital admission and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool and evaluated certainty using the GRADE approach. Results: We identified 14 articles reporting results from 11 trials and including a total of 14,565 patients. Substantial methodological and clinical heterogeneity between the studies precluded meta-analysis. The three largest trials (11,291 patients in total), providing low to moderate certainty evidence, all showed no benefit or harm overall from mechanical compressions compared with manual compressions. Lower-certainty evidence from other smaller trials was conflicting, with some showing benefit and some showing harm from a mechanical compression approach. Conclusions: Existing trials do not show a benefit from the use of mechanical compressions, compared with manual compressions. These findings support the current treatment recommendations that advise against the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices.
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.