↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2016
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0202-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hui Li, Dongping Wang, Yi Yu, Xiang Zhao, Xiaoli Jing

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literatures comparing the use of mechanical chest compression device and manual chest compression during cardiac arrest (CA) with respect to short-term survival outcomes and neurological function. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles by handsearch. The inclusion criteria for this review must be human prospective controlled studies of adult CA. Random effects models were used to assess the risk ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and discharge, and neurological function. Twelve trials (9 out-of-hospital and 3 in-hospital studies), involving 11,162 participants, were included in the review. The results of this meta-analysis indicated no differences were found in Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scores, survival to hospital admission and survival to discharge between manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and mechanical CPR for out-of-hospital CA (OHCA) patients. The data on achieving ROSC in both of in-hospital and out-of-hospital setting suggested poor application of the mechanical device (RR 0.71, [95 % CI, 0.53, 0.97] and 0.87 [95 % CI, 0.81, 0.94], respectively). OHCA patients receiving manual resuscitation were more likely to attain ROSC compared with load-distributing bands chest compression device (RR 0.88, [95 % CI, 0.80, 0.96]). The in-hospital studies suggested increased relative harm with mechanical compressions for ratio of survival to hospital discharge (RR 0.54, [95 % CI 0.29, 0.98]). However, the results were not statistically significant between different kinds of mechanical chest compression devices and manual resuscitation in survival to admission, discharge and CPC scores for OHCA patients and survival to discharge for in-hospital CA patients. The ability to achieve ROSC with mechanical devise was inferior to manual chest compression during resuscitation. The use of mechanical chest compression cannot be recommended as a replacement for manual CPR, but rather a supplemental treatment in an overall strategy for treating CA patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 113 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 27%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 23%
Engineering 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 18 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,009,596
of 15,741,683 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#83
of 965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,565
of 267,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,741,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 267,865 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 91% 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