Comparison of the quality of chest compressions on a dressed versus an undressed manikin: A controlled, randomised, cross-over simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undressing the chest of a cardiac arrest victim may delay the initiation of chest compressions. Furthermore, expecting laypeople to undress the chest may increase bystander reluctance to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Both of these factors might conceivably decrease survival following cardiac arrest. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine if the presence or absence of clothes affected the quality of chest compressions during CPR on a simulator manikin. METHODS: Thirty laypeople and 18 firefighters were randomised to start CPR on the thorax of a manikin that was either clothed (three layers) or not. Data were obtained via recordings from the manikin and audio- and video-recordings. Measurements were: maximum compression depth; compression rate; percentage of compressions with correct hand positioning; percentage of compressions with complete release (< or = 10 mm), and percentage of compressions of the correct depth (range 40-50 mm). Laypeople were given a four-hour European Resuscitation Council standardised course in basic life support and tested immediately after. Firefighters were tested without additional training. Mock cardiac arrest scenarios consisted of three minutes of CPR separated by 15 minutes of rest. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between CPR performed on an undressed manikin compared to a dressed manikin, for laypeople or firefighters. However, undressing the manikin was associated with a mean delay in the initiation of chest compressions by laypeople of 23 seconds (N = 15, 95% CI: 19;27). CONCLUSIONS: In this simulator manikin study, there was no benefit gained in terms of how well CPR was performed by undressing the thorax. Furthermore, undressing the thorax delayed initiation of CPR by laypeople, which might be clinically detrimental for survival.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".