ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Comparison of Chest Compression Quality Using Wing Boards versus Walking Next to a Moving Stretcher: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of Borg scale in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: An integrative review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Randomized Comparison of Two New Methods for Chest Compressions during CPR in Microgravity-A Manikin Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- ECMO in Cardiac Arrest: A Narrative Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen a rescuer walks alongside a stretcher and compresses the patient's chest, the rescuer produces low-quality chest compressions. We hypothesized that a stretcher equipped with wing boards allows for better chest compressions than the conventional method.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized, crossover study, we enrolled 45 medical workers and students. They performed hands-on chest compressions to a mannequin on a moving stretcher, while either walking (the walk method) or riding on wings attached to the stretcher (the wing method). The depths of the chest compressions were recorded. The participants' vital signs were measured before and after the trials.
resultsThe average compression depth during the wing method (5.40 ± 0.50 cm) was greater than during the walk method (4.85 ± 0.80 cm;
conclusionsChest compressions performed on the stretcher while moving using the wing method can produce high-quality chest compressions, especially for rescuers with a smaller size and physique.
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.