Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20074353›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2010

Advanced Cardiac Resuscitation Evaluation (ACRE): a randomised single-blind controlled trial of peer-led vs. expert-led advanced resuscitation training.

Thomas C Hughes, Zoeb Jiwaji, Kamaldeep Lally, Antonia Lloyd-Lavery, Amrit Lota, Andrea Dale, Robert Janas, Christopher Jk Bulstrode

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Education for resuscitation].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. IMPLSE course: a near-peer simulation course.BMJ simulation & technology enhanced learning · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas C HughesEmergency Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK. tom.hughes@ndorms.ox.ac.uk
Zoeb Jiwaji
Kamaldeep Lally
Antonia Lloyd-Lavery
Amrit Lota
Andrea Dale
Robert Janas
Christopher Jk Bulstrode
University of Oxford · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvanced resuscitation skills training is an important and enjoyable part of medical training, but requires small group instruction to ensure active participation of all students. Increases in student numbers have made this increasingly difficult to achieve.

methodsA single-blind randomised controlled trial of peer-led vs. expert-led resuscitation training was performed using a group of sixth-year medical students as peer instructors. The expert instructors were a senior and a middle grade doctor, and a nurse who is an Advanced Life Support (ALS) Instructor.A power calculation showed that the trial would have a greater than 90% chance of rejecting the null hypothesis (that expert-led groups performed 20% better than peer-led groups) if that were the true situation. Secondary outcome measures were the proportion of High Pass grades in each groups and safety incidents.The peer instructors designed and delivered their own course material. To ensure safety, the peer-led groups used modified defibrillators that could deliver only low-energy shocks.Blinded assessment was conducted using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The checklist items were based on International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines using Ebel standard-setting methods that emphasised patient and staff safety and clinical effectiveness.The results were analysed using Exact methods, chi-squared and t-test.

resultsA total of 132 students were randomised: 58 into the expert-led group, 74 into the peer-led group. 57/58 (98%) of students from the expert-led group achieved a Pass compared to 72/74 (97%) from the peer-led group: Exact statistics confirmed that it was very unlikely (p = 0.0001) that the expert-led group was 20% better than the peer-led group.There were no safety incidents, and High Pass grades were achieved by 64 (49%) of students: 33/58 (57%) from the expert-led group, 31/74 (42%) from the peer-led group. Exact statistics showed that the difference of 15% meant that it was possible that the expert-led teaching was 20% better at generating students with High Passes.

conclusionsThe key elements of advanced cardiac resuscitation can be safely and effectively taught to medical students in small groups by peer-instructors who have undergone basic medical education training.

Indexed as

Faculty, MedicalPeer GroupStudents, MedicalAdvanced Cardiac Life SupportClinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalHumansSingle-Blind MethodTeaching

Identifiers

PMID20074353
PMCPMC2818633
OpenAlexW2162035711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.