ArticleSaudi medical journal2021
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective for in-hospital cardiac arrest when performed on a stretcher. A manikin study.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacies of various chest compression procedures performed on a stretcher during dynamic transport of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: This prospective and randomized cross-over study used manikins. Practitioners were asked to perform chest compressions on a manikin placed on a moving stretcher for 2 minutes. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedures were included the following 3 types: i) CPR-walking (CPR-W) ii) CPR-straddling (CPR-S), and iii) CPR-mechanical chest compression device (CPR-MCCD). Demographic data of the participants, CPR quality indicators, the time between the start command and first compression, level of difficulty, and the distance covered by the stretcher for the duration of each application were recorded.
resultsThirty-two physicians (9 female, 23 male), participated in this study. The CPR-MCCD procedure was the most effective for all parameters, except the time between the start command and first compression. On the other hand, the compression rate at optimal depth, CPR success score, distance covered, and level of difficulty parameters were significantly favored in the CPR-S group, when compared to the CPR-W group (p less than 0.001, all comparisons).
conclusionsIt is possible to perform high-quality chest compressions during patient transport using the CPR-MCCD method. The CPR-S method allowed practitioners to perform higher-quality chest compressions compared to CPR-W.
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.