Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25211285›Full record

Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2015

Rescuer fatigue during simulated neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

E S Li, P-Y Cheung, M O'Reilly, K Aziz, G M Schmölzer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Simulation in Neonatal Resuscitation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020
    Review
  15. Chest Compressions in the Delivery Room.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Chest Compression Quality in a Newborn Manikin: A Randomized Crossover Trial (August 2016).IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

E S Li1] Faculty of Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada [2] Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada [3] Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
P-Y Cheung1] Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada [2] Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
M O'Reilly1] Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada [2] Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
K Aziz1] Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada [2] Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
G M Schmölzer1] Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada [2] Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada [3] Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
University of Alberta · CAMedical University of Graz · ATRoyal Alexandra Hospital · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess development of fatigue during chest compressions (CCs) in simulated neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). STUDY

designProspective randomized manikin crossover study. Thirty neonatal healthcare professionals who successfully completed the Neonatal Resuscitation Program performed CPR using (i) 3:1 compression:ventilation (C:V) ratio, (ii) continuous CC with asynchronous ventilation (CCaV) at a rate of 90 CC per min and (iii) CCaV at 120 CC per min for a duration of 10 min on a neonatal manikin. Changes in peak pressure (a surrogate of fatigue) and CC rate were continuously recorded and fatigue among groups was compared. Participants were blinded to pressure tracings and asked to rate their level of comfort and fatigue for each CPR trial.

resultCompared with baseline, a significant decrease in peak pressure was observed after 72, 96 and 156 s in group CCaV-120, CCaV-90 and 3:1 C:V, respectively. CC depth decreased by 50% within the first 3 min during CCaV-120, 30% during CCaV-90 and 20% during 3:1 C:V. Moreover, 3:1 C:V and CCaV were similarly preferred by healthcare professionals.

conclusionSimilarly, 3:1 C:V and CCaV CPR were also fatiguing. We recommend that rescuers should switch after every second cycle of heart rate assessment during neonatal CPR.

Indexed as

FatigueAdultCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCross-Over StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHeart MassageHumansIntensive Care, NeonatalMaleManikinsRespiration, ArtificialSurveys and QuestionnairesTask Performance and AnalysisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25211285
OpenAlexW2074648726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.