ReviewResuscitation plus2024
The optimal surface for delivery of CPR: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2024. 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
Aim: To determine the effect of CPR delivery surface (e.g. firm mattress, floor, backboard) on patient outcomes and CPR delivery. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published since 2019 that evaluated the effect of CPR delivery surface in adults and children on patient outcomes and CPR depth (PROSPERO CRD42023467583). We included manikin studies due to a lack of human studies. We identified pre-2019 studies from the 2020 ILCOR evaluation of this topic. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Evidence certainty for each outcome was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Where appropriate, we pooled data in a meta-analysis, using a random-effects model. Results: Database searches identified 489 citations. We included six studies published since 2019. We analysed these studies together with the eleven studies included in the previous ILCOR review. All included studies were manikin randomised controlled trials. Certainty of evidence was low. Interventions including placing the patient on the floor or the use of backboard had minimal impact on achieving greater compression depth. Meta-analyses of floor versus firm hospital mattress or firm home mattress found a mean difference of 5.36 mm (95% CI -1.59 to 12.32) and 2.11 mm (95% CI -3.23 to 7.45) respectively. Conclusion: The use of a backboard led to a small 2 mm increase in chest compression depth in meta-analysis of multiple mannikin trials. Use of a firm mattress or transitioning to the floor did not affect chest compression depth.
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.