↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Automated external defibrillation training on the left or the right side – a randomized simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in Open access emergency medicine OAEM, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Automated external defibrillation training on the left or the right side – a randomized simulation study
Published in
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/oaem.s140220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathilde Stærk, Henrik Bødtker, Kasper G Lauridsen, Bo Løfgren

Abstract

Correct placement of the left automated external defibrillator (AED) electrode is rarely achieved. AED electrode placement is predominantly illustrated and trained with the rescuer sitting on the right side of the patient. Placement of the AED electrodes from the left side of the patient may result in a better overview of and access to the left lateral side of the thorax. This study aimed to investigate if training in automated external defibrillation on the left side compared to the right side of a manikin improves left AED electrode placement. Laypeople attending basic life support training were randomized to learn automated external defibrillation from the left or right side of a manikin. After course completion, participants used an AED and placed AED electrodes in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. In total, 40 laypersons were randomized to AED training on the left (n=19 [missing data =1], 63% female, mean age: 47.3 years) and right (n=20, 75% female, mean age: 48.7 years) sides of a manikin. There was no difference in left AED electrode placement when trained on the left or right side: the mean (SD) distances to the recommended left AED electrode position were 5.9 (2.1) cm vs 6.9 (2.2) cm (p=0.15) and to the recommended right AED electrode position were 2.6 (1.5) cm vs 1.8 (0.8) cm (p=0.06), respectively. Training in automated external defibrillation on the left side of a manikin does not improve left AED electrode placement compared to training on the right side.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Master 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Other 3 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 62 72%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 65 76%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,850,695
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#59
of 231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,870
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them