ArticleScientific reports2020
A novel mechanical chest compressor with rapid deployment in all population cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges during cardiac arrest in pregnancy.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Mathematical Model of Blood Circulation with Compression of the Prototype's Mechanical CPR Waveform.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) resuscitates patients suffering from cardiac arrest. Mechanical chest compression CPR highlights the need for high CPR quality to facilitate survival and neurological recovery. However, current CPR devices cannot be used on pregnant women or infants. These devices' long re-setup times interrupt CPR and can cause cerebral ischemia. This study designed a novel device with a crank-sliding mechanism. The polar coordinate system (r, θ, z) shortened the setup time and enabled adjustment without moving the patient. We compared our device with commercial products (e.g., LUCAS-2) by quantifying the compression pressure. Control groups for manual CPR of trained physicians and untrained citizens were recruited. We used Resusci Anne products as models. Our results indicated that our design exhibited performance similar to that of LUCAS-2 in adults (557.8 vs. 623.6 mmHg, p = 0.217) and met the current CPR standard guidelines. Notably, our device is applicable to pregnant women [565 vs. 564.5 (adults) mmHg, p = 0.987] and infants [570.8 vs. 564.5 (adults) mmHg, p = 0.801] without lowering the compression quality. The overall compression quality and stability of mechanical chest compression CPR were favorable to those of manual CPR. Our device provides an innovative prototype for the next generation of CPR facilities.
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.