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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reducing the impact of intensive care unit mattress compressibility during CPR: a simulation-based study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Simulation, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41077-017-0057-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yiqun Lin, Brandi Wan, Claudia Belanger, Kent Hecker, Elaine Gilfoyle, Jennifer Davidson, Adam Cheng |
| Abstract |
The depth of chest compression (CC) during cardiac arrest is associated with patient survival and good neurological outcomes. Previous studies showed that mattress compression can alter the amount of CCs given with adequate depth. We aim to quantify the amount of mattress compressibility on two types of ICU mattresses and explore the effect of memory foam mattress use and a backboard on mattress compression depth and effect of feedback source on effective compression depth. The study utilizes a cross-sectional self-control study design. Participants working in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) performed 1 min of CC on a manikin in each of the following four conditions: (i) typical ICU mattress; (ii) typical ICU mattress with a CPR backboard; (iii) memory foam ICU mattress; and (iv) memory foam ICU mattress with a CPR backboard, using two different sources of real-time feedback: (a) external accelerometer sensor device measuring total compression depth and (b) internal light sensor measuring effective compression depth only. CPR quality was concurrently measured by these two devices. The differences of the two measures (mattress compression depth) were summarized and compared using multilevel linear regression models. Effective compression depths with different sources of feedback were compared with a multilevel linear regression model. The mean mattress compression depth varied from 24.6 to 47.7 mm, with percentage of depletion from 31.2 to 47.5%. Both use of memory foam mattress (mean difference, MD 11.7 mm, 95%CI 4.8-18.5 mm) and use of backboard (MD 11.6 mm, 95% CI 9.0-14.3 mm) significantly minimized the mattress compressibility. Use of internal light sensor as source of feedback improved effective CC depth by 7-14 mm, compared with external accelerometer sensor. Use of a memory foam mattress and CPR backboard minimizes mattress compressibility, but depletion of compression depth is still substantial. A feedback device measuring sternum-to-spine displacement can significantly improve effective compression depth on a mattress. Not applicable. This is a mannequin-based simulation research. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
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 26 November 2022.
All research outputs
#14,321,306
of 24,932,492 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Simulation
#232
of 262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,414
of 300,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Simulation
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,932,492 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 262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 300,642 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.