| Title |
Is a mechanical-assist device better than manual chest compression? A randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oaem.s133074 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chaiyaporn Yuksen, Thidathit Prachanukool, Kasamon Aramvanitch, Nuttamon Thongwichit, Kittisak Sawanyawisuth, Yuwares Sittichanbuncha |
| Abstract |
Chest compression quality is a determinant of survival from sudden cardiac arrest. The CPR RsQ Assist Device (CPR RAD) is a new cardiopulmonary resuscitation device for chest compression. It is operated manually but it does not pull up on the chest on the up stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the CPR RAD with standard manual compression in terms of chest compression quality in a manikin model. Participants were randomly assigned to either the device or manual chest compression group. Each participant performed a maximum of 4 minutes of hands-only compression with or without the device. During chest compression, the following quality parameters from the manikin were recorded: compression rate, compression depth, and correctness of hand position. Duration of chest compression was significantly higher in device users compared with manual compression (223.93±36.53 vs 179.67±50.81 seconds; P<0.001). The mean compression depth did not differ in a statistically significant way between manual compression and device at 2 minutes (56.42±6.42 vs 54.25±5.32; P=0.052). During the first and second minutes, compression rate was higher in cases of standard compression (133.21±15.95 vs 108±9.45; P<0.001 and 127.41±27.77 vs 108.5±9.93; P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of participants who employed compression that was too shallow or exhibited incorrect hand position. The CPR RAD is more effective in chest compression compared with manual chest compression, as using the device led to better results in terms of fatigue reduction and correct compression rate than standard manual compression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Librarian | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 18% |
| Engineering | 5 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 23 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#166
of 224 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,879
of 328,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.