ReviewInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
Real-time audio-visual feedback with handheld nonautomated external defibrillator devices during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival to intensive care unit discharge among in-hospital cardiac arrest patients by applying audiovisual feedback device.ESC heart failure · 2021Trial
- Article
- Clinical Utility of a Feedback Device in High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: The Guardian Angel.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Real-time feedback for CPR quality - A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Comparison of chest compression quality between 2-minute switch and rescuer fatigue switch: A randomized controlled trial.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRestoring cardiopulmonary circulation with effective chest compression remains the cornerstone of resuscitation, yet real-time compressions may be suboptimal. This project aims to determine whether in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA; population), chest compressions performed with free-standing audiovisual feedback (AVF) device as compared to standard manual chest compression (comparison) results in improved outcomes, including the sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge (outcomes).
methodsScholarly databases and relevant bibliographies were searched, as were clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings to limit publication bias. Studies were not limited by date, language, or publication status. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included that enrolled adults (age ≥ 18 years) with IHCA and assessed real-time chest compressions delivered with either the standard manual technique or with AVF from a freestanding device not linked to an automated external defibrillator (AED) or automated compressor.
resultsFour clinical trials met inclusion criteria and were included. No ongoing trials were identified. One RCT assessed the Ambu CardioPump (Ambu Inc., Columbia, MD, USA), whereas three assessed Cardio First Angel™ (Inotech, Nubberg, Germany). No clinical RCTs compared AVF devices head-to-head. Three RCTs were multi-center. Sustained ROSC (4 studies,
conclusionThe moderate-quality evidence suggests that chest compressions performed using a non-AED free-standing AVF device during resuscitation for IHCA improves sustained ROSC and survival to ICU and hospital discharge.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42020157536).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.