ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison between automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the rescue of cardiac and respiratory arrest.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (A-CPR) and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (M-CPR) in the rescue of cardiac and respiratory arrest. Methods: A retrospective, single-center observational study was conducted to identify 106 patients by reviewing medical records of 269 patients with cardiac and respiratory arrest treated in The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital (Jinan, China) from February 2019 to February 2021. Patients were divided into A-CPR group (n = 55) and M-CPR group (n = 51) based on the resuscitation treatment method. The groups were matched for age, gender and the cause of cardiac arrest. Rescue effects, blood gas analysis indicators, respiratory dynamics and condition improvement of the two groups were compared. Results: In terms of rescue effects, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, successful rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), 24-hour survival rate and survival discharge rate in the A-CPR group were higher than M-CPR group ( Conclusion: The application effect of A-CPR in the rescue of cardiac and respiratory arrest, the improvement of blood gas analysis indexes, respiration and condition improvement are more significant than M-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.