ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Standing chest compressions: simulation-based development and evaluation of a clinically applicable height adjustment approach.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. 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: When hospital staff perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, patients are usually lying on a bed or stretcher, and chest compressions are therefore commonly performed while standing. Current resuscitation guidelines do not provide recommendations regarding standing chest compressions. The aim of this study was to identify a favourable working height for high-quality standing chest compressions. Material and methods: This prospective study included ten healthcare professionals and twenty medical students and was conducted in two parts. Firstly, chest compressions were performed at seven different working heights, starting from knee height as a reference mark. Additional heights were set at 10, 15, and 20 cm above (+) and below (-) knee height. Secondly, knee height setting was then evaluated by comparing chest compression quality with two clinically relevant reference conditions: kneeling on the floor and standing at the lowest stretcher height. Results: In Part 1, the highest values for the primary outcome measures - mean compression depth (52.7 ± 7.9 mm) and the percentage of correct compression depth (80.6 ± 38.5%) - were achieved at knee height. Working heights of 15 and 20 cm above knee height yielded significantly lower compression depth results than at knee height. In Part 2, no significant differences in chest compression depth were observed between the three evaluated positions. Conclusion: Setting the patient's bed or stretcher to the rescuers' knee height enables high-quality chest compressions to be delivered while standing. The working height should be adjusted accordingly, with great emphasis placed on avoiding heights that are too high. The findings suggest that the performance of chest compressions while standing may warrant greater attention in future resuscitation guidelines.
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.