Trial reportPloS one
The optimal number of personnel for good quality of chest compressions: A prospective randomized parallel manikin trial.
Trial report in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Standing chest compressions: simulation-based development and evaluation of a clinically applicable height adjustment approach.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- How Health Habits Influence the Physiological Response During a Physical Activity in Extreme Temperatures?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Physiological Response of Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Crossover Trial on Mannequin in Extreme Temperature Conditions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Observational
- Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model.PloS one · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong durational chest compression (CC) deteriorates cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality. The appropriate number of CC personnel for minimizing rescuer's fatigue is mostly unknown.
objectiveWe determined the optimal number of personnel needed for 30-min CPR in a rescue-team.
methodsWe conducted a randomized, manikin trial on healthcare providers. We divided them into Groups A to D according to the assigned different rest period to each group between the 2 min CCs. Groups A, B, C, and D performed CCs at 2, 4, 6, and 8 min rest period. All participants performed CCs for 30 min with a different rest period; participants allocated to Groups A, B, C, and D performed, eight, five, four, and three cycles, respectively. We compared a quality change of CCs among these groups to investigate how the assigned rest period affects the maintenance of CC quality during the 30-min CPR.
resultsThis study involved 143 participants (male 58 [41%]; mean age, 24 years,) for the evaluation. As participants had less rest periods, the quality of their CCs such as sufficient depth ratio declined over 30-min CPR. A significant decrease in the sufficient CC depth ratio was observed in the second to the last cycle as compared to the first cycle. (median changes; A: -4%, B: -3%, C: 0%, and D: 0% p < 0.01).
conclusionsA 6 min rest period after 2 min CC is vital in order to sustain the quality of CC during a 30-min CPR cycle. At least four personnel may be needed to reduce rescuer's fatigue for a 30-min CPR cycle when the team consists of men and women.
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.