ArticleResuscitation plus2026
POCUS in pediatric arrest (Res-US pulse check): development and evaluation of a simulation-based curriculum.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pseudo-Pulseless Electrical Activity With Anaphylaxis in a Pediatric Surgical Patient: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Step-by-step: Translating deliberate practice to the bedside.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Beyond feasibility: does simulation-based POCUS training translate into clinically meaningful pediatric arrest performance?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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines recommend pulse assessment within 10-s, yet manual palpation during pediatric cardiac arrest is often inaccurate. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can improve detection of arterial pulsatility, identify cardiac activity or standstill, and diagnose reversible causes of arrest. However, pediatric-specific protocols for integrating POCUS into cardiac arrest management are limited, and concerns persist that POCUS may prolong interruptions in CPR. This study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a structured protocol integrating POCUS into pediatric cardiac arrest management. Methods: We designed a simulation-based curriculum using rapid cycle deliberate practice. A flipped-classroom model combined an online module with in-person simulation. The primary outcome of the study was pulse detection accuracy (correct identification of pulse presence/absence). Secondary outcomes for the online module included completion of responses within 10-s and interpretation time. For in-person simulation sessions, secondary outcomes included decision time, CPR pause duration, self-reported confidence and perceived skill improvement. Results: 37 physicians (21 PEM faculty, 16 fellows) completed the online module (total of 740 pulse checks). Pulse detection accuracy was 88.0% for pulse presence and 89.3% for absence; 86.5% met the 10-s target, with a median interpretation time of 5 s. During simulation, accuracy was 100% (5/5) for pulse presence and 94% (17/18) for pulselessness. Median decision time was 4.6 s (IQR 3.8-8.1). Confidence increased from 2.5/5 to 3.9/5 (Cohen's Conclusion: A structured POCUS pulse-check curriculum was associated with improved accuracy, efficiency, and clinician confidence without prolonging CPR pauses, suggesting that a multimodal training approach may support integration of POCUS into pediatric resuscitation.
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.