Pulse check accuracy in pediatrics during resuscitation: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of the study: Current guidelines advise rescuers to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation if a child is unresponsive, not breathing normally, and shows no signs of life. Manual pulse checks are considered unreliable and time-consuming. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy and duration of recommended pulse check methods during pediatric cardiac arrest and explores emerging diagnostic techniques. Methods: For this systematic review (PROSPERO ID CRD42024549535) three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for articles published on this topic. An initial search was conducted on April 24, 2024, with an updated search using the same search strategy on February 16, 2025. Two authors independently screened the articles. One author extracted the data while a second author double-checked it. Quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools evaluated the evidence's quality and certainty. Studies were included if they compared manual pulse checks against alternative pulse check sites or other methods in pediatric patients. The data is presented descriptively. Results: A total of three studies were included. These studies involved 39 pediatric patients and a total of 376 pulse checks. Out of the 47 infants and children included, only 14 were in cardiac arrest. The remaining 33 patients were on mechanical circulatory support with either VA-ECMO or LVAD. In total, 183 nurses and 181 physicians performed 376 pulse or ultrasound checks. Due to their specialty, 122 nurses and 89 doctors were classified as experienced. Sensitivity and specificity of manual pulse check ranged from 76 to 100% and 64-79%, respectively. When experienced providers conducted pulse checks, sensitivity and specificity were higher (76-100% and 62-82%, respectively) compared to inexperienced providers (67-82% and 44-95%).The mean duration of pulse checks was 20 s, with an accuracy of 85%. Conclusion: Despite high heterogeneity among included studies, manual pulse checks only achieved moderate accuracy with a prolonged duration. This suggests that manual pulse checks are unreliable in children for determination cardiac arrest state and need for ongoing CPR.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it