ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2015
Impact of the 2010 resuscitation guidelines training on layperson chest compressions.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retention of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Skills in Medical Students.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Observational
- Recent advances in personalizing cardiac arrest resuscitation.F1000Research · 2019Review
- Frequency and influencing factors of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related injuries during implementation of the American Heart Association 2010 Guidelines: a retrospective study based on autopsy and postmortem computed tomography.International journal of legal medicine · 2017Article
- Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A meta-analysis of 2 260 patients with cardiac arrest.World journal of emergency medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurvival from cardiac arrest is sensitive to the quality of delivered CPR. In 2010, updated international resuscitation guidelines emphasized deeper chest compressions and faster rates, yet it is unknown whether training laypersons using updated guidelines resulted in changed CPR performance. We hypothesized that laypersons taught CPR using the 2010 guidelines performed deeper and faster compressions than those taught using the 2005 materials.
methodsThis work represents a secondary analysis of a study conducted at eight hospitals where family members of hospitalized cardiac patients were trained in CPR. An initial cohort was trained using the 2005 guidelines, and a subsequent cohort was trained using the 2010 guideline materials. Post training, CPR skills were quantified using a recording manikin.
resultsBetween May 2009 to August 2013, 338 subjects completed the assessment. Among the subjects, 176 received 2005 training and 162 underwent 2010 training. The mean compression rate in the 2005 cohort was 87 (95%CI 83-90) per minute, and in the 2010 cohort was 86 (95%CI 83-90) per minute (P=ns), while the mean compression depth was 34 (95%CI 32-35) mm in the 2005 cohort and 46 (95%CI 44-47) mm in the 2010 cohort (P<0.01).
conclusionsTraining with the 2010 CPR guidelines resulted in a statistically significant increase in trainees' compression depth but there was no change in compression rate. Nevertheless, the majority of CPR performed by trainees in both cohorts was below the guideline recommendation, highlighting an important gap between training goals and trainee performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.