ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Evaluation of ventilatory parameters reporting in large animal models of cardiac arrest: a scoping review.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. 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.
- The impact of head and thorax elevation on respiratory mechanics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a multi-model study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ventilation is a critical determinant of cardiopulmonary resuscitation efficiency. Our goal was to evaluate how ventilatory parameters are reported during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in large animal models of cardiac arrest. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, including studies referenced in Pubmed over the last decade (January 1st, 2015 to July 30th, 2025). The review followed the PCC approach: (P) population: large animal models of cardiac arrest; (C) concept: ventilatory settings and parameters during CPR; (C) context: studies aiming at describing or evaluating mechanical or manual ventilation during CPR in experimental conditions. The reporting of the animal characteristics, ventilatory settings and monitored parameters were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results: We identified 111 relevant publications. Most of them used porcine models (79 %), with ventricular fibrillation being the most common method of cardiac arrest induction (59 %). Mechanical ventilation was predominant (75 %), with volume and pressure-controlled modes nearly equally represented. The reporting of critical ventilatory settings was inconsistent, with a percentage of appropriate reporting as follows: respiratory rate (88 %), fraction of inspired oxygen (83 %), positive end-expiratory pressure (49 %), tidal volume (83 %, among studies with volume-controlled ventilation), peak inspiratory pressure (92 %, among studies with pressure-controlled ventilation) and inspiratory to expiratory ratio (17 %, among all studies with mechanical ventilation). Reporting of measured ventilatory parameters during CPR was also limited with, e.g., EtCO Conclusions: This scoping review evidenced substantial variability and frequent omissions in the reporting of ventilatory settings and monitoring in large animal CPR studies. Updated recommendations could be useful to provide specific guidelines of reporting in the field.
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.