↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of CPR quality and rescuer fatigue between standard 30:2 CPR and chest compression-only CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Comparison of CPR quality and rescuer fatigue between standard 30:2 CPR and chest compression-only CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13049-014-0059-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonghwan Shin, Seong Youn Hwang, Hui Jai Lee, Chang Je Park, Yong Joon Kim, Yeong Ju Son, Ji Seon Seo, Jin Joo Kim, Jung Eun Lee, In Mo Lee, Bong Yeun Koh, Sung Gi Hong

Abstract

ObjectiveWe aimed to compare rescuer fatigue and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality between standard 30:2 CPR (ST-CPR) and chest compression only CPR (CO-CPR) performed for 8 minutes on a realistic manikin by following the 2010 CPR guidelines.MethodsAll 36 volunteers (laypersons; 18 men and 18 women) were randomized to ST-CPR or CO-CPR at first, and then each CPR technique was performed for 8 minutes with a 3-hour rest interval. We measured the mean blood pressure (MBP) of the volunteers before and after performing each CPR technique, and continuously monitored the heart rate (HR) of the volunteers during each CPR technique using the MRx monitor. CPR quality measures included the depth of chest compression (CC) and the number of adequate CCs per minute.ResultsThe adequate CC rate significantly differed between the 2 groups after 2 minutes, with it being higher in the ST-CPR group than in the CO-CPR group. Additionally, the adequate CC rate significantly differed between the 2 groups during 8 minutes for male volunteers (p =0.012). The number of adequate CCs was higher in the ST-CPR group than in the CO-CPR group after 3 minutes (p =0.001). The change in MBP before and after performing CPR did not differ between the 2 groups. However, the change in HR during 8 minutes of CPR was higher in the CO-CPR group than in the ST-CPR group (p =0.007).ConclusionsThe rate and number of adequate CCs were significantly lower with the CO-CPR than with the ST-CPR after 2 and 6 minutes, respectively, and performer fatigue was higher with the CO-CPR than with the ST-CPR during 8 minutes of CPR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 23%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 32 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 October 2022.
All research outputs
#13,333,847
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#792
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,415
of 261,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 261,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.