Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27177424›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2016

Short structured feedback training is equivalent to a mechanical feedback device in two-rescuer BLS: a randomised simulation study.

Noemi Pavo, Georg Goliasch, Franz Josef Nierscher, Dominik Stumpf, Moritz Haugk, Jan Breckwoldt, Kurt Ruetzler, Robert Greif, Henrik Fischer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

9 authors.

Noemi PavoDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Georg GoliaschDepartment of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Franz Josef NierscherDepartment of Anaesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Control, AUVA Lorenz Böhler Trauma Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Dominik StumpfHospital of the Sisters of Charity Linz, Linz, Austria.
Moritz HaugkDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jan BreckwoldtFaculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kurt RuetzlerInstitute of Anaesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Robert GreifDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. Robert.Greif@insel.ch.
Henrik FischerFederal Ministry of the Interior and Sigmund Freud University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResuscitation guidelines encourage the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices implying better outcomes after sudden cardiac arrest. Whether effective continuous feedback could also be given verbally by a second rescuer ("human feedback") has not been investigated yet. We, therefore, compared the effect of human feedback to a CPR feedback device.

methodsIn an open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial, we compared CPR performance of three groups of medical students in a two-rescuer scenario. Group "sCPR" was taught standard BLS without continuous feedback, serving as control. Group "mfCPR" was taught BLS with mechanical audio-visual feedback (HeartStart MRx with Q-CPR-Technology™). Group "hfCPR" was taught standard BLS with human feedback. Afterwards, 326 medical students performed two-rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8 min. CPR quality parameters, such as "effective compression ratio" (ECR: compressions with correct hand position, depth and complete decompression multiplied by flow-time fraction), and other compression, ventilation and time-related parameters were assessed for all groups.

resultsECR was comparable between the hfCPR and the mfCPR group (0.33 vs. 0.35, p = 0.435). The hfCPR group needed less time until starting chest compressions (2 vs. 8 s, p < 0.001) and showed fewer incorrect decompressions (26 vs. 33 %, p = 0.044). On the other hand, absolute hands-off time was higher in the hfCPR group (67 vs. 60 s, p = 0.021).

conclusionsThe quality of CPR with human feedback or by using a mechanical audio-visual feedback device was similar. Further studies should investigate whether extended human feedback training could further increase CPR quality at comparable costs for training.

Indexed as

FeedbackManikinsCardiopulmonary ResuscitationEducation, MedicalEquipment DesignFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart MassageHumansMalePressureProspective StudiesStudents, MedicalThoraxYoung AdultBasic life support (BLS)Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)Feedback device

Identifiers

PMID27177424
PMCPMC4866361

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.