ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Mechanical differences between standard arm and foot chest compressions: a randomised crossover study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The standard method of resuscitation chest compression (CC) is the two-handed chest compression (HCC), whereas the quality of foot chest compressions (FCCs) has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aimed to compare the mechanical characteristics of foot and two-handed chest compressions to identify differences in quality and potential safety concerns between HCCs and FCCs. Methods: This was a randomised crossover manikin study. The outcomes measured included the time course of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted by the manikin on the force plate during resuscitation and components of high-quality CCs. Results: While the maximal force exerted during FCCs was approximately 5 % lower than during HCCs, the angle of this maximal force from the vertical was nearly twice as large in FCCs ( Conclusion: The method of compression influences both the magnitude and angle of the force applied. FCCs were associated with significantly lower quality metrics. Nevertheless, on average, participants in both groups achieved CC parameters that were within or close to the recommended guideline ranges.
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.