ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2016
Clinical evaluation of the AutoPulse automated chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the northern district of Shanghai, China.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 4. Adult advanced life support.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- 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
- A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Mechanical versus manual chest compression in cardiac arrest: a systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Comparison of partial pressure of oxygen between compression-only CPR and standard CPR in simulated adult cardiac arrest - A manikin-based clinical modelling.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Use of Mechanical Chest Compression for Resuscitation in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest-Device Matters: A Propensity-Score-Based Match Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Prognostic Impact of In-Hospital Use of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices Compared with Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Nationwide Population-Based Observational Study in South Korea.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Observational
- [Adult advanced life support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhether the AutoPulse automated chest compression device is worthy of clinical use for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains controversial. A prospective controlled study was conducted to evaluate the effect of AutoPulse versus manual chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) of OHCA patients in the northern district of Shanghai, China. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 133 patients with OHCA who were treated at the Emergency Medical Center of the Tenth People's Hospital Affiliated with Tongji University between March 2011 and March 2012 were included. The patients were randomly assigned to the Manual CPR (n = 64) and AutoPulse CPR groups (n = 69) in accordance with the approach of chest compression received. The primary outcome measure was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and the secondary outcome measures included 24-h survival rate, hospital discharge rate, and neurological prognosis at hospital discharge.
resultsThe ROSC rate of patients with OHCA was significantly higher in the AutoPulse CPR group than in the Manual CPR group (44.9% vs. 23.4%; p = 0.009). The 24-h survival rate of OHCA patients was significantly higher in the AutoPulse CPR group than in the Manual CPR group (39.1% vs. 21.9%; p = 0.03). The hospital discharge rate of the patients with OHCA was significantly higher in the AutoPulse CPR group than in the Manual CPR group (18.8% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.03). The proportion of patients with OHCA and a cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2 points at hospital discharge was higher in the AutoPulse CPR group than in the Manual CPR group, but the difference was not statistically significant (16.2% vs. 13.4%, p = 1.00).
conclusionsUse of the AutoPulse increases CPR success and survival rates in patients with OHCA, but its ability to improve cerebral performance requires further evaluation.
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.