ReviewResuscitation plus2026
Anticipatory charging of the defibrillator: a systematic review.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate whether anticipatory charging of the defibrillator prior to rhythm analysis improves patient outcomes and resuscitation performance compared with charging the defibrillator after rhythm analysis. Methods: We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD420251068149) through searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library from inception through November 24, 2025. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing charging the defibrillator prior to rhythm analysis with charging after rhythm analysis. We excluded conference abstracts and unpublished literature. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 and QUIPS, and GRADE was used for outcome assessment. Due to significant heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed, and a narrative synthesis of the findings is provided. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria: five clinical observational studies and six simulation trials. Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes (high risk of bias and indirectness from simulation or bundled intervention studies). Observational studies showed mixed associations between anticipatory charging and survival or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), with some benefit when implemented in bundled interventions. Across clinical and simulation studies, anticipatory charging consistently reduced pre-shock and peri-shock pauses compared with standard charging after rhythm analysis. However, comparisons with the 2010 guideline charging method were inconsistent. Limited data from one small study of in-hospital cardiac arrests suggested similar rates of inadvertent shocks across charging strategies. Conclusion: Anticipatory charging is feasible and associated with fewer interruptions in chest compressions compared with standard charging but may not be superior to the 2010 guideline charging method. Its impact on survival and neurological outcomes also remain uncertain. Registration: PROSPERO CRD420251068149.
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.