SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the Thumper Device for Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a major rescue measure for cardiac arrest (CA) patients, and chest compression is the key to CPR. The Thumper device was designed to facilitate manual compression during CPR. However, current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide controversial findings on the efficacy of the Thumper device. Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical benefits of using the Thumper device with manual chest compressions during the provision of CPR for patients in CA. Methods: Relevant studies were retrieved from various databases, including Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CNKI, and by manually searching the reference lists of research and review articles. All RCTs published in either English or Chinese until June 31, 2020, were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival rate (SR), and the incidence of rib fractures (RFs) were compared between the manual and Thumper chest compressions. Results: A total of 2164 records were identified, of which 16 were RCTs with an overall risk of bias ranging from low to medium classification. Following CPR, the odds ratios for ROSC, SR, and RF were significantly better for the Thumper chest compression with ORs of 2.56 (95% CI 2.11-3.11, Conclusions: The Thumper compression devices may improve patient outcome, when used at inhospital cardiac arrest. This review suggests a potential role for mechanical chest compression devices for in-hospital cardiac arrest, but there is an urgent need for high-quality research, particularly adequately powered randomised trials, to further examine this role.
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.