ArticlePediatric research2024
Comparison of hemodynamic effects of chest compression delivered via machine or human in asphyxiated piglets.
Article in Pediatric research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Misinformation and Junk Science in Obstetrics Medical Malpractice: Newborn Brain Injury.O&G open · 2026Article
- Impact of rescuer rotation on metrics of neonatal chest compression: a simulation study.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Effect of vasopressin on brain and cardiac tissue during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated post-transitional piglets.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Intramuscular versus intravenous epinephrine administration in a pediatric porcine model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Femoral Occlusion during Neonatal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Improves Outcomes in an Ovine Model of Perinatal Cardiac Arrest.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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality chest compressions (CC) are an important factor of neonatal resuscitation. Mechanical CC devices may provide superior CC delivery and improve resuscitation outcomes. We aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of CC delivered by machine and human using a neonatal piglet model.
methodsTwelve asphyxiated piglets were randomized to receive CC during resuscitation using an automated mechanical CC device ("machine") or the two-thumb encircling technique ("human"). CC was superimposed with sustained inflations.
resultsTwelve newborn piglets (age 0-3 days, weight 2.12 ± 0.17 kg) were included in the study. Machine-delivered CC resulted in an increase in stroke volume, and minimum and maximum rate of left ventricle pressure change (dp/dt
conclusionsDuring machine-delivered CC, stroke volume and left ventricular contractility were significantly improved. Mechanical CC devices may provide improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcomes in neonatal cardiac arrest induced by asphyxia. IMPACT: Machine chest compression leads to changes in hemodynamic parameters during resuscitation of asphyxiated neonatal piglets, namely greater stroke volume and left ventricular contractility, compared with standard two-thumb compression technique. Mechanical chest compression devices may provide improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcomes in neonatal and pediatric asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest.
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.