Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22709917›Full record

SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2012

Mechanical CPR devices compared to manual CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and ambulance transport: a systematic review.

Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Kevin E Mackey, Zhong Cheng Zhang, Hideharu Tanaka, Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, Robert Swor, Sang Do Shin

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marcus Eng Hock OngDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608, Singapore. marcus.ong.e.h@sgh.com.sg
Kevin E Mackey
Zhong Cheng Zhang
Hideharu Tanaka
Matthew Huei-Ming Ma
Robert Swor
Sang Do Shin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature to address the question: "In pre-hospital adult cardiac arrest (asystole, pulseless electrical activity, pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia and Ventricular Fibrillation), does the use of mechanical Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) devices compared to manual CPR during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and ambulance transport, improve outcomes (e.g. Quality of CPR, Return Of Spontaneous Circulation, Survival)".

methodsDatabases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included manikin and human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports.

resultsOut of 88 articles identified, only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these 10 articles, 1 was Level of Evidence (LOE) 1, 4 LOE 2, 3 LOE 3, 0 LOE 4, 2 LOE 5. 4 studies evaluated the quality of CPR in terms of compression adequacy while the remaining six studies evaluated on clinical outcomes in terms of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge and Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC). 7 studies were supporting the clinical question, 1 neutral and 2 opposing.

conclusionIn this review, we found insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of mechanical CPR devices in settings of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and during ambulance transport. While there is some low quality evidence suggesting that mechanical CPR can improve consistency and reduce interruptions in chest compressions, there is no evidence that mechanical CPR devices improve survival, to the contrary they may worsen neurological outcome.

Indexed as

AmbulancesCardiopulmonary ResuscitationEmergency Medical ServicesHumansOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestQuality of Health CareSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID22709917
PMCPMC3416709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.