Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34281042›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Analysis of Physiological Response during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Personal Protective Equipment: A Randomized Crossover Study.

María Fernández-Méndez, Martín Otero-Agra, Felipe Fernández-Méndez, Santiago Martínez-Isasi, Myriam Santos-Folgar, Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

María Fernández-MéndezCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0260-820X
Martín Otero-AgraREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sports Science, University of Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1543-9780
Felipe Fernández-MéndezCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9025-595X
Santiago Martínez-IsasiCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8075-7668
Myriam Santos-FolgarREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sports Science, University of Vigo, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain.
Roberto Barcala-FurelosCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7247-0509
Antonio Rodríguez-NúñezCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESComplejo Hospitalario de Pontevedra · ESUniversidade de Vigo · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required for the self-protection of healthcare workers during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients at risk of aerosol transmission of infectious agents. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of personal protective equipment on physiological parameters during CPR. A randomized, quasi-experimental, crossover design was used. The study was carried out in a training and simulation emergency box and the total sample consisted of 20 healthcare professionals. Two CPR tests were compared with the recommended sequence of 30 chest compressions and 2 ventilations. The duration of each test was 20 min. One of the CPR tests was carried out without using any PPE (CPR_control), i.e., performed with the usual clothing of each rescuer. The other test was carried out using a CPR test with PPE (i.e., CPR_PPE). The main variables of interest were: CPR quality, compressions, ventilations, maximum heart rate, body fluid loss, body temperature, perceived exertion index, comfort, thermal sensation and sweating. The quality of the CPR was similar in both tests. The maximum heart rate was higher in the active intervals (compressions + bag-valve-mask) of the test with PPE. CPR_PPE meant an increase in the perceived effort, temperature at the start of the thermal sensation test, thermal comfort and sweating, as opposed to CPR performed with usual clothing. Performing prolonged resuscitation with PPE did not influence CPR quality, but caused significant physiological demands. Rescuers were more fatigued, sweated more and their thermal comfort was worse. These results suggest that physical preparation should be taken into account when using PPE and protocols for physiological recovery after use should also be established.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationPersonal Protective EquipmentCross-Over StudiesFatigueHumansManikinscardiopulmonary resuscitationpersonal protective equipmentphysical effortthermal stressthermoregulation

Identifiers

PMID34281042
PMCPMC8296930
OpenAlexW3174765814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.