Removal of bra for pad placement and defibrillation – A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In some regions, females are less likely to receive public-initiated resuscitation, potentially due to the need to expose the chest and breasts for proper automated external defibrillator (AED) pad placement. We conducted a scoping review to investigate the breadth of the existing literature and knowledge gaps on bra (brassière) removal and AED pad application. Methods: Studies that examined bra removal and outcomes associated with AED pad placement and defibrillation in cardiac arrest were eligible. We searched three databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane) from inception to September 26, 2024. Google and Google Scholar (first 20 pages) were searched for grey literature on October 1, 2024. The study followed the scoping review framework by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: The search identified 287 references. Three studies met the eligibility criteria, including one animal and two manikin studies, of which two were conference abstracts. No studies examined patient outcomes. No adverse events were reported with defibrillation in a pig model with AED pads in direct contact with a bra's underwire. No difference in time to pad placement or shock delivery was seen with bra removal in simulation. One simulation study reported female manikins were less likely to be completely de-robed, including bra removal, which was attributed to social norms, modesty, and lack of awareness. Conclusion: Scant evidence is available on the need for bra removal and outcomes associated with AED application. Further research is needed to explore whether bra removal is imperative for AED pad placement and defibrillation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it