ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2013
Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus standard CPR for cardiac arrest patients: a meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traumatic Injuries Following Mechanical versus Manual Chest Compression.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2022Article
- The Development of Innovative Handheld Devices to Augment Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Therapy and External Cardioversion and Defibrillation.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2017Review
- [Technical assist devices : Perspectives and new developments].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016Article
- The knowledge level of final year undergraduate health science students and medical interns about cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a university teaching hospital of Northwest Ethiopia.World journal of emergency medicine · 2014Article
- Changes of end-tidal carbon dioxide during cardiopulmonary resuscitation from ventricular fibrillation versus asphyxial cardiac arrest.World journal of emergency medicine · 2014Article
- Effects of ramipril on ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction in rabbits.World journal of emergency medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActive compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACDCPR) has been popular in the treatment of patients with cardiac arrest (CA). However, the effect of ACD-CPR versus conventional standard CPR (S-CRP) is contriversial. This study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of ACD-CPR versus S-CRP in treating CA patients.
methodsRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials published from January 1990 to March 2011 were searched with the phrase "active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiac arrest" in PubMed, EmBASE, and China Biomedical Document Databases. The Cochrane Library was searched for papers of meta-analysis. Restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, survival rate to hospital admission, survival rate at 24 hours, and survival rate to hospital discharge were considered primary outcomes, and complications after CPR were viewed as secondary outcomes. Included studies were critically appraised and estimates of effects were calculated according to the model of fixed or random effects. Inconsistency across the studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic method. Sensitivity analysis was made to determine statistical heterogeneity.
resultsThirteen studies met the criteria for this meta-analysis. The studies included 396 adult CA patients treated by ACD-CPR and 391 patients by S-CRP. Totally 234 CA patients were found out hospitals, while the other 333 CA patients were in hospitals. Two studies were evaluated with high-quality methodology and the rest 11 studies were of poor quality. ROSC rate, survival rate at 24 hours and survival rate to hospital discharge with favorable neurological function indicated that ACD-CPR is superior to S-CRP, with relative risk (RR) values of 1.39 (95% CI 0.99-1.97), 1.94 (95% CI 1.45-2.59) and 2.80 (95% CI 1.60-5.24). No significant differences were found in survival rate to hospital admission and survival rate to hospital discharge for ACD-CPR versus S-CRP with RR values of 1.06 (95% CI 0.76-1.60) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.73-1.38).
conclusionQuality controlled studies confirmed the superiority of ACD-CPR to S-CRP in terms of ROSC rate and survival rate at 24 hours. Compared with S-CRP, ACD-CPR could not improve survival rate to hospital admission or survival rate to hospital discharge.
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.