ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
The effects of cognitive-motor multitasking demands on the quality of chest compressions in CPR-A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- How Performing Chest Compressions Influences Mental Arithmetic Capabilities: A Randomized Cross-Over Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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: In standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), rescuers switch between ventilation and chest compressions. We examined the effect of this task-switching requirement on chest-compression quality to gain insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying performance in standard CPR. Understanding these mechanisms can help in the development of evidence-based practical implications and cognitive aids for CPR. Methods: A total of 300 first-year medical and dentistry students (212 females, 20.2 ± 4.4 years) participated in this randomized controlled trial. They received either a CPR training comprising both chest compressions and ventilation (standard CPR) or a CPR training comprising chest compressions only (chest-compression-only CPR). Chest-compression quality (compression depth and rate) was measured via a resuscitation manikin and analyzed using linear mixed models and linear trend analyses. Results: Overall, chest-compression quality did not differ across standard CPR and chest-compression-only CPR. However, in standard CPR, compression quality was better after ventilation than before ventilation. Importantly, ventilation impaired the quality of the compressions executed immediately after ventilation, but the quality increased with each compression after ventilation, resulting in a better chest-compression quality after ventilation than before it. Conclusions: This study suggests that ventilation acts as a break, improving physical capability, which in turn enhances compressions after ventilation. However, at the same time, ventilation causes a task switch which increases cognitive demands and impairs chest-compression quality immediately after ventilation. Considering the negative effect of the task-switching demand on chest-compression quality, it is useful to develop cognitive aids for professional medical care. Such cognitive aids can signal an upcoming switch to ventilation, thereby reducing the multitasking load in terms of reduced monitoring demands with respect to the number of chest compressions that have already been executed.
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.