ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of secondary anterior-posterior defibrillator pad placement on chest compression interruptions: a three-arm randomised manikin-based simulation study among Dutch ambulance teams.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Complication frequency of mechanical chest compression devices: A single-center, blinded study using retrospective data.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- The effects of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed out-of-hospital and in-hospital with manual or automatic device methods and laboratory parameters on survival of patients with cardiac arrest.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- ECPR successfully used in 5.5-hour cardiac arrest caused by peripartum cardiomyopathy: a case report and minireview.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality.
methodsThis is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system.
resultsThe median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%-75% = 117.9-133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 102.1-102.7) (
conclusionDuring patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.
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.