SynthesisScientific reports2015
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the Thumper Device for Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Chest compression quality decreases in hypoxic conditions simulating an airliner cabin at cruising altitude: a randomized, controlled, double-blind Manikin Study.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Observational
- Article
- Interventions to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a review of meta-analyses and future agenda.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent evidence regarding mechanical chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is conflicting. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of mechanical versus manual chest compressions on resuscitation outcomes in OHCA. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched. In total, five RCTs with 12,510 participants were included. Compared with manual chest compressions, mechanical chest compressions did not significantly improve survival with good neurological outcome to hospital discharge (relative risks (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.61-1.04, P = 0.10; I(2) = 65%), return of spontaneous circulation (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.09, P = 0.59; I(2) = 0%), or long-term (≥6 months) survival (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.16, P = 0.65; I(2) = 16%). In addition, mechanical chest compressions were associated with worse survival to hospital admission (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-1.00, P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%) and to hospital discharge (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.99, P = 0.03; I(2) = 0%). Based on the current evidence, widespread use of mechanical devices for chest compressions in OHCA cannot be recommended.
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.