ArticleResuscitation plus2021
Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this randomised study was to compare the two-finger technique (TFT) performance using dominant hand (DH) and non-dominant hand (NH) during simulated infant CPR (iCPR).
methods24 participants performed 3-min iCPR using TFT with DH or NH followed by 3-min iCPR with their other hand. Perceived fatigue was rated using visual analogue scale. Primary outcomes - (i) difference between DH and NH for compression depth (CCD), compression rate (CCR), residual leaning (RL) and duty cycle (DC); (ii) difference between first and last 30 s of iCPR performance with DH and NH. Secondary outcomes - (i) perception of fatigue between DH and NH; (ii) relationship between perception of fatigue and iCPR performance.
resultsNo significant difference between DH and NH for any iCPR metric. CCR (DH: P = 0.02; NH: P = 0.004) and DC (DH: P = 0.04; NH: P < 0.001) were significantly different for the last 30 s for DH and NH. Perception of fatigue for NH (76.8 ± 13.4 mm) was significantly higher (t = -3.7, P < 0.001) compared to DH (62.8 ± 12.5 mm). No significant correlation between iCPR metrics and perception of fatigue for DH. However, a significant correlation was found for CCR (r = 0.43; P = 0.04) and RL (r =
conclusionNo difference in performance of iCPR with DH versus NH was determined. However, perception of fatigue is higher in NH and was related to CCR and RL, with no effect on quality of performance. Based on our results, individuals performing iCPR can offer similar quality of infant chest compressions regardless of the hand used or the perception of fatigue, under the conditions explored in this study.
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.