↓ Skip to main content

Quality of basic life support when using different commercially available public access defibrillators

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Quality of basic life support when using different commercially available public access defibrillators
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13049-015-0123-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Müller, Cynthia Poenicke, Maxi Kurth, Torsten Richter, Thea Koch, Carolin Eisold, Adrian Pfältzer, Axel R. Heller

Abstract

Basic life support (BLS) guidelines focus on chest compressions with a minimal no-flow fraction (NFF), early defibrillation, and a short perishock pause. By using an automated external defibrillator (AED) lay persons are guided through the process of attaching electrodes and initiating defibrillation. It is unclear, however, to what extent the voice instructions given by the AED might influence the quality of initial resuscitation. Using a patient simulator, 8 different commercially available AEDs were evaluated within two different BLS scenarios (ventricular fibrillation vs. asystole). A BLS certified instructor acted according to the current European Resuscitation Council 2010 Guidelines and followed all of the AED voice prompts. In a second set of scenarios, the rescuer anticipated the appropriate actions and started already before the AED stopped speaking. A BLS scenario without AED served as the control. All scenarios were run three times. The time until the first chest compression was 25 ± 2 seconds without the AED and ranged from 50 ± 3 to 148 ± 13 seconds with the AED depending on the model used. The NFF was .26 ± .01 without the AED and between .37 ± .01 and .72 ± .01 when an AED was used. The perishock pause ranged from 12 ± 0 to 46 ± 0 seconds. The optimized sequence of actions reduced the NFF, which ranged now from .32 ± .01 to .41 ± .01, and the perishock pause ranging from 1 ± 1 to 19 ± 1 seconds. Voice prompts given by commercially available AED merely meet the requirements of current evidence in basic life support. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between devices with regard to time until the first chest compression, perishock pause, no-flow fraction and other objective measures of the quality of BLS. However, the BLS quality may be improved with optimized handling of the AED. Thus, rescuers should be trained on the respective AED devices, and manufacturers should expend more effort in improving user guidance to shorten the NFF and perishock pause.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 51 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Engineering 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 17 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,229,686
of 24,804,602 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#206
of 1,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,727
of 269,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,804,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 269,507 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.