ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
Does Real-time Feedback Guide Devices Improve the Quality of Chest Compressions in the Bystander (Naves) Provider?
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important lifesaving technique that must taught to everyone. As most cardiac arrests occur outside of the hospital, training the general population in the recognition of cardiac arrest and performing high-quality CPR is vital. Thus, this study aimed to compare the chest compression quality data (rate, depth, and fraction) with and without the use of feedback devices during CPR. Methods: A crossover observational study was carried out at a tertiary hospital in September 2021. Five hundred and seventeen 1 Results: The mean compression rate with feedback was statistically significantly lower after performing one cycle of CPR (mean difference: -5.610; 95% confidence interval [CI]= -7.987--3.233; Conclusions: We found that the use of feedback devices during layperson-simulated CPR scenarios significantly improved the quality of chest compression in terms of depth and rate and resulted in more guidelines adherence. Moreover, national programs for CPR education should be implemented.
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.