ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Ventilation characteristics of cardiopulmonary resuscitation manikins: a mixed-methods bench study.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sufficient ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is increasingly recognised as a critical determinant of patient outcomes. The effectiveness of ventilation training, however, likely depends on the anatomical and mechanical fidelity of CPR manikins. While chest compression mechanics of manikins have been studied extensively, ventilation-related anatomy, airflow pathways, and respiratory mechanics have not been evaluated systematically. Methods: This study analysed 10 adult CPR manikins from three manufacturers. Airway and lung replicas were documented using photography, video laryngoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Expiratory tidal volume and air leakage were measured during volume-controlled mechanical ventilation via facemask, supraglottic airway devices and endotracheal tube. Mechanics of the respiratory system were described by the peak and plateau airway pressures and respiratory compliance. Results: Manikins differed substantially in airway design and expiratory airflow design. Three distinct expiratory mechanisms were identified, of which only one permitted exhalation through the airway and thus quantification of expiratory tidal volumes. Air leakage varied across manikins and airway devices, including during ventilation via advanced airway devices. Respiratory mechanics showed marked variability, with peak inspiratory pressures ranging from 21 ± 1 to 56 ± 1 mbar and compliances from 7 ± 0 to 51 ± 4 mL/mbar. Several models exhibited substantial leakage via the gastric channel of the i-gel® supraglottic airway. Conclusion: CPR manikins exhibited substantial variability in ventilation-related anatomy, airflow pathways, leakage and respiratory mechanics. None of the assessed manikins consistently approximated human ventilation characteristics across airway devices, underscoring the need for local evaluation of manikin-airway device combinations to optimise ventilation fidelity in CPR training.
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.