Focused echocardiography, end-tidal carbon dioxide, arterial blood pressure or near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring during paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the individual use and predictive value of focused echocardiography, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), invasive arterial blood pressure (BP) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in children. This scoping review was undertaken as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from the last ILCOR reviews until September 2020. We included all published studies evaluating the effect of echocardiography, EtCO2, BP or NIRS guided CPR on clinical outcomes and quality of CPR. We identified eight observational studies, including 288 children. Two case series reported the use of echocardiography, one in detecting pulmonary emboli, the second in cardiac standstill, where contractility was regained with the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The two studies describing EtCO2 were ambivalent regarding the association between mean values and any outcomes. Mean diastolic BP was associated with increased survival and favourable neurological outcome, but not with new substantive morbidity in two studies describing an overlapping population. NIRS values reflected changes in EtCO2 and cerebral blood volume index in two studies, with lower values in patients who did not achieve return of circulation. Although there seems some beneficial effect of these intra-arrest variables, higher quality paediatric studies are needed to evaluate whether echocardiography, EtCO2, BP or NIRS guided CPR could improve outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".