ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and evaluation of a mechanical chest compression device for standardized rodent cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small animal models are indispensable in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) research. High-quality CPR, characterized by consistent chest compression rate, depth, and positioning is crucial for survival. However, achieving standardization in manual high-frequency chest compressions in small animal models remains technically challenging. This study evaluated the reproducibility of manual chest compressions and introduced a novel mechanical chest compression device (MCD) designed to improve consistency in rodent experiments. In an in vitro setup, manual compressions were performed by ten participants at target rates ranging from 100 to 260 bpm, guided by a metronome. Compressions performed on a fluid-filled polymer reservoir were analyzed for the compression rate, variability, and time within a ± 10% target range. A color indicator was used to assess the variability of the compression point. A small animal MCD was designed and tested under the same conditions. In vivo, 5 Sprague-Dawley rats underwent 5 min of electrically induced normothermic cardiac arrest followed by 8 min of external chest compressions using the MCD. Obtained data was compared to the in vitro results. A total of 21,650 manual and 20,098 mechanical compressions were analyzed. At 200 bpm, chest compressions using the MCD were significantly more precise (201 ± 1.2 bpm) than manual compressions (218 ± 21 bpm, p < 0.001) with a significant reduced compression point variability (1.7 ± 0.1 cm
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.