ArticleResuscitation plus2022
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Defibrillation guidelines recommend avoiding patient contact during shock delivery. However, hands-on defibrillation (compressions during shock) and manual pressure augmentation (MPA - pushing on the defibrillator pads during shock) may lead to improved clinical outcomes. There are limited data addressing the protection provided by personal protective equipment (PPE) during hands-on defibrillation and MPA. This study investigated the hand-to-hand and hand-to-knee leakage current experienced by a simulated kneeling provider wearing different PPE. Methods: A defibrillator was used in experiments on a pork shoulder, investigating three different hands-on positions: closed fist on defibrillator pads; open palm on pads with inadvertent finger contact (overhang); and open palm on the chest. Evaluated PPE included single and double gloves (nitrile and latex) and rescuer cargo trousers in wet and dry conditions ( Results: Mean hand-to-hand leakage currents in MPA without PPE was 0.41 mA (0.2-0.74 mA) and with PPE was 0.2 mA (0.08-0.58 mA). For experiments involving finger or palm contact on the chest, wearing any PPE resulted in a >99% reduction in mean leakage currents from an average 354.58 mA (258.96-446.22 mA) to an average 0.48 mA (0.16-1.56 mA). Rescuer trousers were insulative in dry conditions even without gloves (0.2-1.2 mA). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the tested clinical examination gloves markedly reduced leakage current to the rescuer and that the lowest levels of leakage current occurred during MPA attributed to the electrical insulation of the pads.
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.