Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33046289›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of emergency medicine2021

Impact of personal protective equipment on the effectiveness of chest compression - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ankit Kumar Sahu, Soorya Suresh, Roshan Mathew, Praveen Aggarwal, Jamshed Nayer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ankit Kumar SahuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Electronic address: ankitkumarsahu13@gmail.com.
Soorya SureshDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Roshan MathewDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Praveen AggarwalDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Jamshed NayerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesTo assess the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on different aspects of chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we conducted this study.

methodsThis systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to June-6, 2020, limiting to the studies that reported the comparison of the effectiveness of CC in terms of CC rate, CC depth, the proportion of adequate CC rate, the proportion of adequate CC depth or proportion of adequate recoil; in study arms with or without PPE. Risk of bias was assessed by the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tool. Quantitative data synthesis was done using the generic inverse variance method and the fixed-effects model.

resultsFive simulation-based studies were finally included. A Significant decrease in CC rate (SMD: -0.28, 95%CI: -0.47 to -0.10) and CC depth (SMD: -0.26, 95%CI: -0.44 to -0.07) were observed in the PPE arm as compared to the no-PPE arm. The difference in CC rate was more prominently seen in adult CPR than in paediatric CPR. Without PPE, the proportion of adequate CC rate delivered was 0.74, which reduced significantly to 0.60 after use of PPE (p - 0.035). Similarly, the proportion of adequate CC depth was significantly lesser (p - 0.001) in PPE arm (0.55), as compared to that of the no-PPE arm (0.78).

conclusionThe use of PPE compromises the quality of CC during CPR significantly, and newer ways to deliver chest compression has to be investigated. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020192031).

Indexed as

Personal Protective EquipmentCardiopulmonary ResuscitationHeart ArrestHeart MassageHumansTreatment OutcomeCardiopulmonary resuscitationChest compressionPersonal protective equipment

Identifiers

PMID33046289
PMCPMC7527287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.