Trial reportScientific reports2025
A two-rescuer-method significantly alters CPR-quality during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an airliner cabin - a randomized, controlled manikin trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02002481 (Vergleich Der Qualität Der Kardiopulmonalen Reanimation Durch Professioneller Helfer), which is not on this 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.
Vergleich Der Qualität Der Kardiopulmonalen Reanimation Durch Professioneller Helfer (Notärzte / Rettungsassistenten) während Lufttransporten
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between 1/15,000-1/50,000 passengers suffer in-flight medical emergencies (IFME) with cardiac arrest accounting for 0.3 %. Confined space can have a negative impact on quality of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), thus we have conducted a randomized controlled study to find the most effective approach of performing CPR in a one - vs. two-rescuer method in a simulated airliner cabin. We randomized 20 healthcare professionals to perform a set of 10 min Basic Life Support (BLS, chest compressions and bag-mask-ventilation) in a one- vs. two-rescuer scenario and in confined space vs. open space in a randomized order using a full-body manikin. The primary outcome was compression depth as sensitive marker for differences in CPR-quality. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02002481). Mixed ANOVAs with post-hoc false-discovery-rate adjusted pairwise comparisons indicated that one- vs. two-rescuer method showed differences in no-flow-time (confined: 8.05 ± 0.17 vs. 24.25 ± 1.05 s/2min and open space: 7.51 ± 0.02 vs. 21.31 ± 0.43 s/2min; p < 0.001) and missing releases (confined: 27.09 ± 5.55 vs. 46.64 ± 9.66 number/10 minutes and open space: 27.09 ± 2.44 vs. 43.36 ± 6.4 number/10minutes; p < 0.001). A confined space significantly elevated no-flow-time in the two-rescuer-method vs. the one-rescuer-method (24.24 ± 1.06 s/2min vs. 21.26 ± 0.44 s/2min; p < 0.001), whereas compression frequency and compression depth were different but still within the current recommendations of ERC/AHA in both methods per condition. Limited space in an airliner cabin has significant impact on no-flow-time in a two-rescuer-method. In case of CPR and limited access to the patient, we recommend a one-rescuer-method as first approach to ensure early and high-quality CPR for experienced personnel.
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.