Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40969990›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2025

Rethinking the 2-minute rule in adult basic life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Emma Menant, Guillaume Debaty, Janet Bray, Thomas Rea, Xavier Jouven

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reply to: On the "2-minute rule".Resuscitation plus · 2025
    Article
  4. Correspondence: On the "2-minute rule".Resuscitation plus · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emma MenantUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, PARCC, F-75015 Paris, France.
Guillaume DebatyEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Janet BraySchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Thomas ReaDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Xavier JouvenUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, PARCC, F-75015 Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The standard 2-minute cycle of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) followed by rhythm analysis has long guided out-of-hospital cardiac arrest basic life support. However, recent studies suggest this method may not optimize return of spontaneous circulation. Research shows most ventricular fibrillation recurrences occur within a minute post-shock, supporting earlier defibrillation and rhythm analysis during CPR to improve survival. Conversely, when no shock is needed, longer CPR durations may be more beneficial. This commentary article reviews the evolution of CPR guidelines and critically assesses new evidence, advocating for a re-evaluation of the 2-minute interval in favour of more flexible, patient-specific resuscitation strategies.

Indexed as

Automated external defibrillatorCardiopulmonary resuscitationChest compression fractionGuidelinesOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestRecommendationsRhythm analysisVentricular fibrillation duration

Identifiers

PMID40969990
PMCPMC12441612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.