Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2019
Two new chest compression methods might challenge the standard in a simulated infant model.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is It Feasible to Perform Infant CPR during Transfer on a Stretcher until Cannulation for Extracorporeal CPR? A Randomization Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review
- Pediatric Ventilation Skills by Non-Healthcare Students: Effectiveness, Self-Perception, and Preference.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Four Different Finger Positions and Their Effects on Hemodynamic Changes during Chest Compression in Asphyxiated Neonatal Piglets.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Comparison between Three Different Techniques Considering Quality Skills, Fatigue and Hand Pain during a Prolonged Infant Resuscitation: A Cross-Over Study with Lifeguards.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- [Newborn resuscitation and support of transition of infants at birth].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paediatric cardiorespiratory arrest is a rare event that requires a fast, quality intervention. High-quality chest compressions are an essential prognostic factor. The aim of this prospective, randomized and crossover study in infant manikin 2-min cardiorespiratory resuscitation scenario is to quantitatively compare the quality of the currently recommended method in infants (two-thumb-encircling hand techniques) with two new methods (the new two-thumb and the knocking-fingers techniques) using a 15:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio. Ten qualified health professionals were recruited. Variables analysed were mean rate and the ratio of compressions in the recommended rate range, mean depth and the ratio of compressions within the depth range recommendations, ratio of compressions with adequate chest release and ratio of compressions performed with the fingers in the correct position. Ratios of correct compressions for depth, rate, chest release and hand position were always above 70% regardless of the technique used. Reached mean depth and mean rate were similar to the 3 techniques. No statistically significant differences were found in any of the variables analysed.Conclusion: In an infant manikin, professionals are able to perform chest compressions with the new techniques with similar quality to that obtained with the standard method. What is Known: • Quality chest compressions are an essential prognostic factor in paediatric cardiorespiratory arrest. • It has been reported poor results when studied cardiorespiratory resuscitation quality in infants applying the recommended methods. What is New: • In a simulated scenario, quality of chest compressions performed with two new techniques (nTTT and KF) is similar to that obtained with the currently recommended method (TTHT).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31446464What 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.