Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38811649›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2024

Effectiveness of innovative chest compression on the emergency department stretcher by an alternative method: a randomized controlled crossover trial.

Nawaphon Charungwatthana, Pavita Laohakul, Theerapon Tangsuwanaruk, Borwon Wittayachamnankul

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nawaphon CharungwatthanaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Inthawaroros Road, Sribhumi, Amphoe Muang Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Pavita LaohakulDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Inthawaroros Road, Sribhumi, Amphoe Muang Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Theerapon TangsuwanarukDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Inthawaroros Road, Sribhumi, Amphoe Muang Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Borwon WittayachamnankulDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Inthawaroros Road, Sribhumi, Amphoe Muang Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand. borwon.witt@cmu.ac.th.

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University MC022-65
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparison of the three methods standing-on-a-stool (SS), one knee kneeling on a stretcher (KS), and kneeling at the same height as the patient's bed on the kneeling stool (KK) to evaluate the yielded of highest CPR quality and rescuer comfortability. A prospective randomized cross-over study which compares the three different rescuer positions for their effectiveness of chest compression. Conducted at a tertiary care between 19 and 22 Aug 2022. Emergency personnel aged 18 years or older, who completed the AHA-approved BLS course. The chest compression data was obtained by the ALIVE AED manikin® and AED reporting system. The information on the CPR quality and post-test questionnaires assessing the participants' preference, satisfaction and modified Borg's scale score was collected. The three methods shown no statistically significant difference in adequate chest compression depth (percentage). KK was not superior than SS at chest compression rate (P = 0.05). The adequate full chest recoil achieved with KK and KS were significantly higher than that of SS. However, there were no statistical difference between the three methods in the modified Borg's scale score. Based on the satisfying score, the rescuers preferred KK to either SS (p 0.007) or KS (p 0.012). The three methods shown no statistically significant difference in adequate chest compression depth (percentage). Still, both KK and KS provided more adequate chest recoil, so we would recommend using these two methods in the ED.Clinical trial registry: This study was retrospective registration in thaiclinicaltrials.org (TCTR20230119002, 19/1/2023).

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationCross-Over StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalAdultFemaleHumansMaleManikinsMiddle AgedProspective StudiesStretchersCardiopulmonary resuscitationChest compressionRescuer's position

Identifiers

PMID38811649
PMCPMC11137072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.