ArticleResuscitation plus2023
Effects of personal protective equipment on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and outcomes: A systematic review.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- The quality of CPR delivered by EMS personnel wearing enhanced personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study from Perth, Australia.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Enhancing Safety and Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Coronavirus Pandemic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Use of personal protective equipment and cognitive load during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A randomized cross-over simulation-based study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The impact of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on CPR quality and patient outcomes is unclear. This systematic review aimed to examine whether wearing PPE during resuscitation affects patient outcomes, CPR quality and rescuer fatigue. Methods: In this review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022347746), we searched Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library between 2000 and 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies: in actual or simulated cardiac arrest; comparing PPE with no PPE; and randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a English abstract. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 and ROBINS-I tools and outcomes assessed with GRADE. We conducted a meta-analysis according to the study design. Quantitative data synthesis was done using a random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity. Results: A total of 17 simulation-based studies and 1 clinical study were included. All outcomes were judged to be very low certainty of evidence, subject to high risk of bias. The clinical study showed no difference in survival comparing enhanced and conventional PPE. Meta-analysis of 11 RCTs and 6 observational studies found no difference in CPR quality in rescuers wearing PPE compared with no PPE. Pooled rescuer fatigue was significantly worse in the PPE group (mean difference, 2.7 VAS score out of 10; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0). Conclusions: PPE was not associated with reduced CPR quality or lower cardiac arrest survival. Rescuers wearing PPE may report more fatigue. This finding was mainly derived from simulation studies, additional clinical studies are needed.
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.