ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in traumatic cardiac arrest: a retrospective observational study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Observational
- Mechanical versus Manual Chest Compressions for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Emergency Department: A Comparative Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMechanical chest compression (CC) devices are frequently used in in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings. In this study, mechanical and manual CC in in-hospital cardiac arrest was compared in terms of survival.
methodsAdult patients who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) for 2 years period and had cardiac arrest in the ED were included in this retrospective, observational study. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 7-day and 30-day survival and hospital discharge data were compared between the two groups of patients who underwent manual CC and those who had mechanical CC with the Lund University Cardiac Assist System-2 device.
resultsAlthough the rate of ROSC in the mechanical CC group was lower than in the manual CC group, this difference was not statistically significant (41.7% vs. 50.4%;
conclusionIn the light of these results, we can say that the use of piston-based mechanical CC devices in ED may be beneficial. More reliable results can be obtained with a prospective study to be performed in the ED.
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.