Skip to main content

Table 2 The effectiveness of chest compressions performed by the students (n = 216)

From: How effective are chest compressions when wearing mask? A randomised simulation study among first-year health care students during the COVID-19 pandemic

  

Type of mask

p-value

Mean difference [CI 95%]

SMG (n = 108)

CMG (n = 108)

Mean depth of CC (mm)

0–29.9 s

48,26 ± 14.15

48.55 ± 9.97

0.86

-0.27 [-3.6, 2.9]

30–59.9 s

45.14 ± 10.88*

46.19 ± 10.71*

0.47

-1.1 [-3.9, 1.8]

60–89.9 s

42.88 ± 10.08*

44.76 ± 11.09*

0.19

-1.9 [-4.7, 0.9]

90–120 s

41.69 ± 10.41*

43.77 ± 14.72*

0.23

-2.1 [-5.5, 1.3]

2 min in total

44.49 ± 10.03

45.77 ± 10.97

0.41

-1.2 [-4, 1.6]

Mean rate of CC (/min)

0–29.9 s

113.28 ± 16.17

110.96 ± 15.94

0.29

2.3 [-1.9, 6.6]

30–59.9 s

113.57 ± 17.97

111.29 ± 18.00

0.35

2.2 [-2.5, 7.1]

60–89.9 s

113.56 ± 18.48

112.04 ± 18.00

0.54

1.5 [-3.4, 6.4]

90–120 s

112.94 ± 20.07

110.63 ± 20.16

0.39

2.3 [-3.1, 7.7]

2 min in total

113.34 ± 17.76

111.23 ± 17.51

0.38

2.1 [-2.6, 6.8]

  1. Data are normally distributed
  2. SMG Surgical mask group, CMG Cloth mask group, CC chest-compression, CI Confidence interval
  3. Results are presented as mean and standard deviation. The 2-min continuous chest-compression session was segmented into 30 s intervals. Differences between the SMG and CMG related to CC’ depth and rate were measured using t-test
  4. *p < 0.05 compared to the first interval (t-test was used)
Back to article page

BMC Emergency Medicine

ISSN: 1471-227X

Contact us