Comparing the Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Performed at the Over-the-Head Position and Lateral Position of Neonatal Manikin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent neonatal resuscitation guidelines suggest to perform chest compression (CC) at over-the-head (OTH) position instead of lateral position when further interventions including umbilical venous access are needed. Little information is available regarding the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation at different positions. Our study compared the quality of CC and ventilation at OTH position vs. lateral position in simulated neonatal resuscitation. Methods: Thirty-nine neonatal practitioners who attended the NRP®-based Provider renewal course workshop participated this study. Laerdal QCPR infant model were used to collect the data (2-miutes continuous recording) on quality of CC and ventilation of all participants at OTH position and lateral position in randomized order, both coordinated with mask ventilation or endotracheal ventilation through a Neopuff© T-piece system. The quality of CC and ventilation were compared. Participants also reported their demographics and opinions in anonymous questionnaires after the session. Results: The quality of CC and ventilation was not different when CPR was performed at OTH position and lateral position, in both mask and endotracheal ventilation. When CPR was performed with endotracheal ventilation, there were small faster frequencies of CC and ventilation at OTH position, compared with those at lateral position (p=0.004). Most participants (87%) liked the CC performed at OTH position and had no adverse feedback. Conclusions: Performing CC at OTH position was generally well received in simulated resuscitation; the quality of CC and ventilation at OTH position was not significantly different from that at lateral position, irrespective of mask or endotracheal ventilation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".