MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409716518 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100963

Advanced airway interventions for paediatric cardiac arrest: updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409716518 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Acworth, Elliott Acworth, Lokesh Tiwari, Jesús López‐Herce, Eric J. Lavonas, Laurie J. Morrison, Barnaby R. Scholefield

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineAirwayIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineAnesthesiaPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Airway management is vital in paediatric resuscitation, especially since respiratory conditions are frequently the primary cause of paediatric cardiac arrest. Placement of an advanced airway device may facilitate more effective resuscitation than bag-mask ventilation but requires more skilled personnel and the time taken to perform the procedure may interfere with other vital components of resuscitation. Objectives: To assess the use of advanced airway interventions, tracheal intubation (TI) or supraglottic airway (SGA) placement, compared with bag mask ventilation (BMV) alone for resuscitation of children in cardiac arrest. Data sources: This was an update to a previous systematic review performed by ILCOR. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted for suitable studies published before 1 January 2025. This systematic review was registered as PROSPERO CRD42023482459. Study eligibility: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised comparison studies involving airway interventions (BMV, TI, SGA) in infants and children (excluding newborn infants) in cardiac arrest in any setting were included. Study appraisal & synthesis: Investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 and CLARITY frameworks. Critically important outcomes included survival to hospital discharge and survival with good neurological outcome. Results: -analysis. The majority of studies involved out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, with few studies exploring in-hospital cardiac arrest. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low. For the critically important outcomes of survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic outcome and survival to hospital discharge, results showed no benefit from advanced airway interventions (TI or SGA) over BMV. Conclusions: There is currently no supporting evidence that an advanced airway (supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation) during CPR improves survival or survival with a good neurological outcome after paediatric cardiac arrest in any setting when compared with bag-mask ventilation.Well-designed randomised trials are needed to address this important question.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResuscitation PlusSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207