To summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.
Systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of mechanical chest compression. We included randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised trials that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression for adult patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival of event, overall survival, survival with good neurological outcome. Results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis.
Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles.
Five trials were included, of which three evaluated the LUCAS or LUCAS-2 device and two evaluated the Autopulse device. The results did not show an advantage to the use of mechanical chest compression devices for survival to discharge/30 days (average OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77, 1.02) and survival with good neurological outcome (average OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53, 1.11).
Existing studies do not suggest that mechanical chest compression devices are superior to manual chest compression, when used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 122. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2024.
All research outputs
#434,635
of 34,601,289 outputs
Outputs from Resuscitation
#58
of 6,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,609
of 280,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Resuscitation
#5
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,601,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
