Trial reportPloS one2022
New chest compression method in infant resuscitation: Cross thumb technique.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 9. Neonatal resuscitation.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- Trained Lifeguards Performing Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation While Running: A Pilot Simulation Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe two-thumb encircling technique (2TT) is superior to the two-finger technique (2FT) in infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but there are difficulties in providing ventilation as soon as possible. We modified the 2TT to the cross-thumb technique (CTT) to maintain good CPR performance at the same position as 2FT. We aimed to compare the quality of chest compression and brief hands-off times in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT by a single rescuer using an infant CPR manikin model.
methodsThis study was designed as a prospective randomized controlled simulation-based study. We used the Resusci® Baby QCPR (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) as a simulated 3-month-old infant. Ventilation was performed by the mouth-to-mouth technique using a chest compression-to-ventilation ratio of 30:2 as a single rescuer. Data on CPR quality, such as locations, rates, depth and release of chest compressions, hands-off times, and proper ventilation, were recorded using the Resusci® Baby QCPR and SkillReporter. Also, the chest compression fraction (CCF) was automatically calculated.
resultsThe depth of chest compression in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 40.0 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 39.0, 41.0), 42.0 mm (IQR 41.0, 43.0), and 42.0 mm (IQR 41.0, 43.0), respectively. The depth of chest compression in 2FT was shallower than that in the other two techniques (P<0.05). CCF in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 73.9% (IQR 72.2, 75.6), 71.2% (IQR 67.2, 72.2) and 71.3% (IQR 67.7, 74.1), respectively. CCF was higher in 2FT than in the other two techniques (P<0.05). Correct location in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 99.0% (IQR 86.0, 100.0), 100.0% (IQR 97.0, 100.0) and 100.0% (IQR 99.0, 100.0), respectively. Correct location in CTT and 2TT was higher than that in 2FT. Performing CTT, the subjective pain and fatigue score were lower than other two technique.
conclusionA new chest compression technique, CTT was better in chest compression depth compared with 2FT and may be helpful in maintaining correct chest compression location with less pain and fatigue in infant CPR.
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.