Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35524185›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022

Adequacy of compression positioning using the feedback device during chest compressions by medical staff in a simulation study.

Yasuaki Koyama, Tasuku Matsuyama, Takako Kaino, Tetsuya Hoshino, Junzo Nakao, Nobutake Shimojo, Yoshiaki Inoue

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yasuaki KoyamaDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. yasukoya@md.tsukuba.ac.jp.
Tasuku MatsuyamaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
Takako KainoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Tetsuya HoshinoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Junzo NakaoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Nobutake ShimojoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Yoshiaki InoueDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, University of Tsukuba Hospital, 2-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
University of Tsukuba Hospital · JPKyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2020 American Heart Association guidelines recommend the use of a feedback device during chest compressions (CCs). However, these devices are only placed visually by medical personnel on the lower half of the sternum and do not provide feedback on the adequacy of the pressure-delivery position. In this study, we investigated whether medical staff could deliver CCs at the adequate compression position using a feedback device and identified where the inadequate position was compressed.

methodsThis simulation-based, prospective single-centre study enrolled 44 medical personnel who were assigned to four different groups based on the standing position and the hand in contact with the feedback device as follows: right-left (R-l), right-right (R-r), left-right (L-r), and left-left (L-l), respectively. The sensor position where the maximal average pressure was applied during CCs using the feedback device were ascertained with a flexible capacitive pressure sensor. We determined if this position is the adequate compression position or not. The intergroup differences in the frequency of the adequate compression position, the maximal average pressure, compression rate, depth and recoil were determined.

resultsThe frequencies of adequate compression positioning were 55, 50, 58, and 60% in the R-l, R-r, L-r, and L-l groups, respectively, with no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.917). Inadequate position occurred in the front, back, hypothenar and thenar sides. The maximal average pressure did not significantly differ among the groups (p = 0.0781). The average compression rate was 100-110 compressions/min in each group, the average depth was 5-6 cm, and the average recoil was 0.1 cm, with no significant intergroup differences (p = 0.0882, 0.9653, and 0.2757, respectively).

conclusionsWe found that only approximately half of the medical staff could deliver CCs using the feedback device at an adequate compression position and the inadequate position occurred in all sides. Resuscitation courses should be designed to educate trainees about the proper placement during CCs using a feedback device while also evaluating the correct compression position.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationHeart ArrestFeedbackHumansManikinsMedical StaffProspective StudiesAdequate position for chest compressionsChest compressionsFeedback deviceFlexible pressure sensorHypothenar side

Identifiers

PMID35524185
PMCPMC9074206
OpenAlexW4229080231

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.