↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical CPR: Who? When? How?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
139 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
319 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 CPR: Who? When? How?
Published in
Critical Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2059-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kurtis Poole, Keith Couper, Michael A. Smyth, Joyce Yeung, Gavin D. Perkins

Abstract

In cardiac arrest, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key determinant of patient survival. However, delivery of effective chest compressions is often inconsistent, subject to fatigue and practically challenging.Mechanical CPR devices provide an automated way to deliver high-quality CPR. However, large randomised controlled trials of the routine use of mechanical devices in the out-of-hospital setting have found no evidence of improved patient outcome in patients treated with mechanical CPR, compared with manual CPR. The limited data on use during in-hospital cardiac arrest provides preliminary data supporting use of mechanical devices, but this needs to be robustly tested in randomised controlled trials.In situations where high-quality manual chest compressions cannot be safely delivered, the use of a mechanical device may be a reasonable clinical approach. Examples of such situations include ambulance transportation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention, as a bridge to extracorporeal CPR and to facilitate uncontrolled organ donation after circulatory death.The precise time point during a cardiac arrest at which to deploy a mechanical device is uncertain, particularly in patients presenting in a shockable rhythm. The deployment process requires interruptions in chest compression, which may be harmful if the pause is prolonged. It is recommended that use of mechanical devices should occur only in systems where quality assurance mechanisms are in place to monitor and manage pauses associated with deployment.In summary, mechanical CPR devices may provide a useful adjunct to standard treatment in specific situations, but current evidence does not support their routine use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 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 319 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 319 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 11%
Student > Master 27 8%
Other 25 8%
Researcher 24 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 146 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 15%
Engineering 6 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 <1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 <1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 155 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. 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 16 August 2023.
All research outputs
#419,699
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#238
of 6,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,266
of 344,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#10
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 344,862 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.