ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Accuracy of ventilation feedback devices compared with a reference standard during asynchronous ventilation with continuous chest compressions in a simulated cardiac arrest: a prospective non-randomized cross-over study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of two commercially available ventilation feedback devices (VFD) in measuring ventilation rate and tidal volume during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with continuous chest compressions and asynchronous ventilations in the presence of reversed airflow. Methods: Prospective, simulation-based, non-randomized cross-over study. Twenty emergency department nurse practitioners performed manual ventilation on an intubated high-fidelity manikin during two 1-minute trials (one per device), targeting 10 breaths/min during continuous chest compressions (100-120/min). Ventilation parameters displayed by EOLifeX® and AccuVent® were compared with measurements from a high-fidelity pneumotachograph (HFRP). Data is presented as mean (standard deviation, min-max range). CI = confidence interval. Results: Conclusion: During simulated CPR with continuous compressions and asynchronous ventilations, VFDs demonstrated clinically relevant inaccuracies. Validation under realistic resuscitation conditions are needed.
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.