ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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.
- Prediction of in-hospital mortality risk in cardiac arrest patients using machine learning models: a study based on the MIMIC-IV database with external validation from Yunnan University Affiliated Hospital.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Mechanical versus Manual Chest Compressions for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Emergency Department: A Comparative Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with the efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) methods playing a crucial role in patient outcomes. The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mechanical and manual CPR in OHCA, focusing on three outcomes: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and survival till discharge. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, incorporating 39 studies for ROSC, 28 for survival to admission, and 30 for survival till discharge, totalling 144,430, 130,499 and 162,088 participants, respectively. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach, assessing risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. Statistical analysis included pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and sensitivity analyses. For ROSC, the pooled OR was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.92-1.29), demonstrating no significant difference between mechanical and manual CPR. Survival to admission favoured mechanical CPR with a pooled OR of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.09-1.43). No conclusive difference was found for survival till discharge, with a pooled OR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.61-1.02). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across outcomes. Evidence of potential publication bias was noted, particularly in the survival to admission outcome. The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low, mainly due to high heterogeneity and indirectness of evidence. The study suggests that mechanical CPR may improve short-term outcomes such as survival to admission in patients with OHCA but does not demonstrate a significant long-term survival benefit over manual CPR.
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.