ReviewCureus2025
Reliability of Manual Pulse Checks Versus Emerging Techniques in Pediatric Resuscitation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perioperative POCUS: Technical Considerations and Applications for the Pediatric Anesthesiologist.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
The accurate and rapid assessment of circulation is critical during pediatric cardiac arrest. Current guidelines recommend manual pulse checks, yet concerns remain regarding their reliability, as delays and inaccuracies may lead to inappropriate interruptions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Emerging techniques, such as point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), offer potential objective alternatives. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the reliability of manual pulse checks compared with emerging techniques in pediatric resuscitation. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase was conducted without date restrictions. Eligible studies compared manual pulse palpation with techniques such as POCUS or auscultation in pediatric populations, either in simulated or clinical settings. Data on study characteristics, diagnostic accuracy, time to decision, and clinical outcomes were extracted, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies - Version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity among studies. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the evidence indicated notable limitations of manual pulse checks, while POCUS demonstrated greater reliability and faster decision-making, in addition to providing supplementary diagnostic information such as confirmation of cardiac activity. However, most of the available studies were based on simulations or small case series, underscoring the need for larger prospective trials. Manual pulse palpation appears to be an unreliable method for assessing circulation in pediatric cardiac arrest. POCUS shows promise as a more accurate and efficient alternative, with potential to improve the quality of resuscitation. Further research in real-world clinical settings is warranted to establish its impact on survival and neurological outcomes.
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.