[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
December 8, 1951


Author Affiliations


From the Departments of Clinical Science and Surgery (Anesthesiology), University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago.

JAMA. 1951;147(15):1444-1453. doi:10.1001/jama.1951.73670320008014

In recent years numerous studies have punctuated the growing belief that newer methods of manual artificial respiration are superior to the commonly used Schafer prone pressure method. Experimental data emanating from a broad spectrum of laboratories1 have indicated a general agreement regarding the low ventilatory efficiency of prone pressure in comparative studies. The observations of Comroe and Dripps2 on apneic hospital patients confirmed this finding and reawakened interest in manual artificial respiration. The extensive tests of Gordon and associates on warm corpses3 and on curarized-anesthetized normal human adults4 have further aided in crystallizing the issue.

The interest of the American National Red Cross, American Medical Association, public utilities and various other national groups has stimulated an attempt to resolve this dilemma. The Department of Defense has assumed the sponsorship of an integrated research program for the critical evaluation of several candidate methods under a variety of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview