ArticleEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine2014
Magical manoeuvre: a 5-s instructor's intervention helps lightweight female rescuers achieve the required chest compression depth.
Article in European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are two or four hands needed for elderly female bystanders to achieve the required chest compression depth during dispatcher-assisted CPR: a randomized controlled trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Trial
- A Simulation-based Randomized Controlled Study of Factors Influencing Chest Compression Depth.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2015Trial
- Chest compressions become deeper when pushing with forward lean: A simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate chest compression (CC) depth is crucial for resuscitation outcomes. Lightweight rescuers, particularly women, are often unable to achieve the required 5-6 cm CC depth. This nonrandomized cohort study investigated new strategies to improve CC performance.
objectiveTo evaluate the effects of a 5-s instructor's intervention on the depth of CCs performed by female rescuers during standard video self-instruction basic life support training.
methodsData were prospectively collected from January 2011 to January 2012 from 336 female medical and pharmacy students undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training at the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. During the training process, the instructors performed a simple 5-s intervention (Andrew's manoeuvre) with all of the rescuers in the study group. The instructor pushed 10 times on the shoulders of each trainee while she performed CCs to achieve the maximal required compression depth. Immediately after training, the participants were asked to perform a 6-min basic life support test on a manikin that was connected to a PC with Skill Reporter System software; the quality of the participants' CPR skills was then evaluated.
resultsThe CC depth in the study group increased by 6.4 mm (P<0.001) compared with the control group (52.9 vs. 46.6 mm). A regression analysis showed that Andrew's manoeuvre increased the depth of the CCs among women by 14.87×(1-0.01×weight) mm.
conclusionA simple 5-s instructor's intervention during the CPR training significantly improved the performance of the female rescuers and helped them achieve the CC depth required by 2010 resuscitation guidelines. Andrew's manoeuvre is most effective among the women with the lowest body weight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.