ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Evaluation of fatigue, load and the quality of chest compressions by bystanders in hot and humid environments.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Theory-practice discrepancy in cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance: a multi-centre evaluation of emergency healthcare providers in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Weight Gain and Fatigue Effect on Nursing Students Performing High-Fidelity CPR Simulation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the physiological load on bystanders during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the quality of chest compressions in hot and humid environments. Methods: This prospective experimental study compared the physical load and quality of chest compressions among healthy volunteers who performed 10 min chest compression in a climate chamber under normal conditions (for Tokyo) (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature [WBGT] 21 °C) and hot and humid conditions (WBGT 31 °C). The primary outcome was the depth of chest compressions over a 10-minute period. Secondary outcomes included the volunteer's heart rate (HR), core body temperature (BT), Borg scale for assessing fatigue, and blood lactate levels. Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t-tests. Results: Out of 31 participants, 29 participants (mean [SD] age: 21[0.7], male: 21 [70.5 %]) were included in the analysis. For WBGT 21 °C and 31 °C, the mean chest compression depth at 10 min was not statistically difference (the depth of chest compression: 52.2 mm and 51.5 mm (p = 0.52)). At 10 min, heart rate and core temperature were 126 vs. 143 bpm, and 37.4℃ vs. 37.5℃ for WBGT 21℃ vs. WBGT 31℃ (mean differences: 17 bpm [95 % CI: 7.7-26.3], 0.1℃ [95 % CI: -0.1-0.3]). At the end, Borg scale was 16 vs. 18 and lactate levels were 3.9 vs. 5.1 mmol/L (mean differences: 2 [95 % CI: 1-3], 1.2 mmol/L [95 % CI: 0.1-2.3]). Conclusion: there was no significant difference in the depth of chest compression of paramedic students under the conditions between WBGT 31℃ and WBGT 21℃. For secondary outcomes, the lactate and fatigue of bystanders increased under WBGT 31℃ compared to WBGT 21℃. Further research is needed on CPR in hot and humid environments.
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.