ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Bag size for manual ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult 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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Smaller-capacity self-inflating bags have been proposed to limit delivered tidal volume during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This review evaluates whether using smaller-capacity self-inflating bags, compared with standard-size adult bags, for manual ventilation during CPR affects patient and ventilation outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review using the ILCOR Continuous Evidence Evaluation approach, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from inception to May 7, 2026 (PROSPERO CRD420251266387). Eligible studies included randomized and non-randomized designs in humans and simulation. Critical outcomes were survival to discharge or 30 days with and without favorable neurological outcome. Important outcomes included survived event, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), tidal volume, ventilation rate, and adverse events. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: No randomized trials were identified. Evidence comprised one before-and-after observational study ( Conclusions: Although evidence is very limited and of very-low certainty, smaller bags may influence delivered tidal volume and worsen patient outcomes. Routine substitution of standard adult bags with small bags during CPR is not supported.
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.