Trial reportScientific reports2024
Effectiveness of innovative chest compression on the emergency department stretcher by an alternative method: a randomized controlled crossover trial.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standing chest compressions: simulation-based development and evaluation of a clinically applicable height adjustment approach.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Influence of rescuer position and arm angle on chest compression quality: An international multicentric randomized crossover simulation trial.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
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.
Funding
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
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.