ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Influence of rescuer position and arm angle on chest compression quality: An international multicentric randomized crossover simulation trial.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standing chest compressions: simulation-based development and evaluation of a clinically applicable height adjustment approach.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- [Technical quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation after a training intervention and its association with anthropometric variables].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2026Article
- Optimizing CPR performance: the role of body composition and ergonomic positioning.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Conducting multicenter simulation-based experimental research: lessons drawn from the QResuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Impact of rescuer position, arm angle, and anthropometric variables on muscle fatigue during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an international multicentric randomized crossover simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Professional content analysis and quality assessment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation educational videos on social media platforms: a comparative study of YouTube, BiliBili, and TikTok.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Success in resuscitation depends not only on the timeliness of the maneuvers but also on the quality of chest compressions. Factors such as the rescuer position and arm angle can significantly impact compression quality. Aim: This study explores the influence of rescuer positioning and arm angle on the quality of chest compressions among healthcare professionals experienced in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods: In this international, multicentric, randomized crossover simulation trial with independent groups, healthcare professionals were assigned to one of four positions: kneeling on the floor, standing, standing on a step stool, and kneeling on the bed. Participants performed two 3-minute trials of uninterrupted chest compressions at arm angles of 90° and 105°. Compression quality was assessed, using manikin derived data. Results: A total of 76 participants entered the study. Those using a 90° arm angle exhibited higher compression scores than those at a 105° angle. Rescuers standing on a step stool maintained higher scores over time when compared to other groups. In contrast, rescuers kneeling on the bed consistently scored below 75% throughout the trial, with particularly low scores at the 105° angle. Conclusion: Rescuer position and arm angle significantly influence CPR quality, with a 90° arm angle and elevated positioning optimizing compression depth and effectiveness. The results recommend against kneeling on the bed due to its negative impact on chest compression quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.