↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007260.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter L Wang, Steven C Brooks

Abstract

Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). To assess the effectiveness of resuscitation strategies using mechanical chest compressions versus resuscitation strategies using standard manual chest compressions with respect to neurologically intact survival in patients who suffer cardiac arrest. On 19 August 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science databases. Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts and Science Citation abstracts had been searched up to November 2009 for prior versions of this review. We also searched two clinical trials registries for any ongoing trials not captured by our search of databases containing published works: Clinicaltrials.gov (August 2017) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (January 2018). We applied no language restrictions. We contacted experts in the field of mechanical chest compression devices and manufacturers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-randomised studies comparing mechanical chest compressions versus manual chest compressions during CPR for patients with cardiac arrest. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included five new studies in this update. In total, we included 11 trials in the review, including data from 12,944 adult participants, who suffered either out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) or in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We excluded studies explicitly including patients with cardiac arrest caused by trauma, drowning, hypothermia and toxic substances. These conditions are routinely excluded from cardiac arrest intervention studies because they have a different underlying pathophysiology, require a variety of interventions specific to the underlying condition and are known to have a prognosis different from that of cardiac arrest with no obvious cause. The exclusions were meant to reduce heterogeneity in the population while maintaining generalisability to most patients with sudden cardiac death.The overall quality of evidence for the outcomes of included studies was moderate to low due to considerable risk of bias. Three studies (N = 7587) reported on the designated primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of one or two), which had moderate quality evidence. One study showed no difference with mechanical chest compressions (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.39), one study demonstrated equivalence (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.04), and one study demonstrated reduced survival (RR 0.41, CI 0.21 to 0.79). Two other secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission (N = 7224) and survival to hospital discharge (N = 8067), also had moderate quality level of evidence. No studies reported a difference in survival to hospital admission. For survival to hospital discharge, two studies showed benefit, four studies showed no difference, and one study showed harm associated with mechanical compressions. No studies demonstrated a difference in adverse events or injury patterns between comparison groups but the quality of data was low. Marked clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect. The evidence does not suggest that CPR protocols involving mechanical chest compression devices are superior to conventional therapy involving manual chest compressions only. We conclude on the balance of evidence that mechanical chest compression devices used by trained individuals are a reasonable alternative to manual chest compressions in settings where consistent, high-quality manual chest compressions are not possible or dangerous for the provider (eg, limited rescuers available, prolonged CPR, during hypothermic cardiac arrest, in a moving ambulance, in the angiography suite, during preparation for extracorporeal CPR [ECPR], etc.). Systems choosing to incorporate mechanical chest compression devices should be closely monitored because some data identified in this review suggested harm. Special attention should be paid to minimising time without compressions and delays to defibrillation during device deployment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 148 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 19%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 15%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 2 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 32 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,067,398
of 14,396,155 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,126
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,363
of 274,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,396,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 274,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.