ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Hands at work: A randomised cross-over mannequin-based trial exploring the impact of hand preference of health care professionals on effectiveness of chest compressions.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and background: There are various theories regarding the ideal hand to be in contact with chest during chest compressions when healthcare professionals and medical students perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Our study aimed to compare the impact of preferred versus non-preferred hand placement on chest on the CPR quality. Methodology: The volunteers were randomised to place their preferred (P)/non-preferred (NP) hand over sternum for the first session and switch hands for the second. Participants performed 2 min of uninterrupted chest compressions, followed by a 2-minute break and another 2 min of chest compressions on Laerdel QCPR Little Anne® mannequin with auditory feedback. The CPR parameters were analysed using QCPR mobile application. Comfort was assessed using 5-point Likert scale. Results: Among the 82 volunteers, 51 participants (62.2%) preferred their dominant hand to be in contact with the chest. Comparable results were seen with mean QCPR score, rate of compression, mean depth and good recoil percentage. The NP set had higher adequate depth percentage (94.8 +/- 13.7) than the P set (92.3 +/- 19.9) (p = 0.042), but participants were more comfortable using their preferred hand over chest (p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Rescuer performance during chest compressions may not be impacted by whether the preferred hand or non-preferred hand of the provider is in contact with sternum.
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.