SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2026
Closed-loop and Artificial intelligence guided cardiopulmonary resuscitation using real-time physiological signals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) includes breaks to check rhythm and pulse, while high-quality CPR requires continual chest compressions. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven "closed-loop" or "near-closed-loop" systems may evaluate CPR-contaminated signals, guide shock and pulse decisions.
methodsAccording to PRISMA statement 2020, We searched databases from 2010 to 2025 for studies on animal or human cardiac arrest where AI-based or algorithmic tools gave real-time intended guidance during CPR or CPR-dominant analysis windows. Evidence was divided into animal perfusion-targeted closed-loop CPR, human shock-advisory algorithms, and human pulse/perfusing-rhythm detection. We classified shockable and non-shockable instances using a bivariate random-effects model and meta-analyses. Many studies reported performance on many electrocardiogram segments per episode; therefore, aggregated findings should be taken as segment-level diagnostic performance, not episode-level accuracy.
resultsFourteen studies met the inclusion criteria: three porcine closed-loop experiments, eight human shock-advisory studies, two pulse-detection studies, and one simulated individualized strategy. Eight shock-advisory studies demonstrated the pooled sensitivity = 0.93 and the specificity = 0.97. There were substantial variation and a high risk of bias in the patient selection and index test domains. Pulse-detection models worked well during clean pauses but not during compressions. Animal controllers enhanced coronary perfusion pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂), or ventricular fibrillation surrogates relative to fixed-depth CPR; however, these effects were transient.
conclusionsAI systems can execute guideline CPR in some datasets, and animal studies confirm perfusion-targeted control's physiological viability. Closed-loop AI-guided CPR is intriguing yet unvalidated, requiring episode-level clinical studies due to fragmented, varied, and methodologically problematic evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251239485.
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.