ArticleResuscitation plus2021
What is the potential for over-compression using current paediatric chest compression guidelines? - A chest computed tomography study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2021. 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.
- Proportional Versus Fixed Chest Compression Depth for Guideline-Compliant Resuscitation of Infant Asphyxial Cardiac Arrest.Prehospital emergency care · 2025Article
- Comparison of paediatric basic life support guidelines endorsed by member councils of Resuscitation Council of Asia.Resuscitation plus · 2023Review
- Poor Concordance of One-Third Anterior-Posterior Chest Diameter Measurements With Absolute Age-Specific Chest Compression Depth Targets in Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Patients.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Observational
- Should paediatric chest compression depth targets consider body habitus? - A chest computed tomography imaging study.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
- Singapore Paediatric Resuscitation Guidelines 2021.Singapore medical journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe explored the potential for over-compression from current paediatric chest compression depth guidelines using chest computed tomography(CT) images of a large, heterogenous, Asian population.
methodsA retrospective review of consecutive children, less than 18-years old, with chest CT images performed between from 2005 to 2017 was done. Demographic data were extracted from the electronic medical records. Measurements for internal and external anterior-posterior diameters (APD) were taken at lower half of the sternum. Simulated chest compressions were performed to evaluate the proportion of the population with residual internal cavity dimensions less than 0 mm (RICD < 0 mm, representing definite over-compression; with chest compression depth exceeding internal APD), and RICD less than 10 mm (RICD < 10 mm, representing potential over-compression).
results592 paediatric chest CT studies were included for the study. Simulated chest compressions of one-third external APD had the least potential for over-compression; no infants and 0.3% children had potential over-compression (RICD < 10 mm). 4 cm simulated chest compressions led to 18% (95% CI 13%-24%) of infants with potential over-compression, and this increased to 34% (95% CI 27%-41%) at 4.4 cm (upper limit of "approximately" 4 cm; 4 cm + 10%). 5 cm simulated compressions resulted in 8% (95% CI 4%-12%) of children 1 to 8-years-old with potential over-compression, and this increased to 22% (95% CI 16%-28%) at 5.5 cm (upper limit of "approximately" 5 cm, 5 cm + 10%).
conclusionIn settings whereby chest compression depths can be accurately measured, compressions at the current recommended chest compression of approximately 4 cm (in infants) and 5 cm (in young children) could result in potential for over-compression.
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.