↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT)

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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 in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT)
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0538-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith Couper, Tom Quinn, Ranjit Lall, Anne Devrell, Barry Orriss, Kate Seers, Joyce Yeung, Gavin D. Perkins

Abstract

Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population. COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment. The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. ISRCTN38139840 , date of registration 9th January 2017.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 26%
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 24%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 13 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,238,302
of 15,053,812 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#110
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,176
of 273,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,053,812 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 273,938 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them