ArticleBMJ open2018
Protocol of a Multicenter International Randomized Controlled Manikin Study on Different Protocols of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for laypeople (MANI-CPR).
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02632500 (Multicenter internAtional raNdomized Controlled manIkin Study on Different Protocols of CPR), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Multicenter internAtional raNdomized Controlled manIkin Study on Different Protocols of CPR (MANI-CPR)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improve Cardiac Emergency Preparedness by Building a Team-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Educational Plan.Frontiers in public health · 2022Trial
- The assessment of the kinematics of the rescuer in continuous chest compression during a 10-min simulation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.European journal of medical research · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest is one of the leading causes of death in industrialised countries. Survival depends on prompt identification of cardiac arrest and on the quality and timing of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation. For laypeople, there has been a growing interest on hands-only CPR, meaning continuous chest compression without interruption to perform ventilations. It has been demonstrated that intentional interruptions in hands-only CPR can increase its quality. The aim of this randomised trial is to compare three CPR protocols performed with different intentional interruptions with hands-only CPR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective randomised trial performed in eight training centres. Laypeople who passed a basic life support course will be randomised to one of the four CPR protocols in an 8 min simulated cardiac arrest scenario on a manikin: (1) 30 compressions and 2 s pause; (2) 50 compressions and 5 s pause; (3) 100 compressions and 10 s pause; (4) hands-only. The calculated sample size is 552 people. The primary outcome is the percentage of chest compression performed with correct depth evaluated by a computerised feedback system (Laerdal QCPR). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: . Due to the nature of the study, we obtained a waiver from the Ethics Committee (IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy). All participants will sign an informed consent form before randomisation. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journal. The data collected will also be made available in a public data repository. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02632500.
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.