ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016
Quality of Basic Life Support - A Comparison between Medical Students and Paramedics.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of online content-based training with hands-on mannequin-based skill training on basic life support knowledge and skills among medical students.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Automated external defibrillator delivery by drone in mountainous regions to support basic life support - A simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- IQ-CPR Meter for Chest Compression Monitoring During Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; a Comparative Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Coastal Fishermen as Lifesavers While Sailing at High Speed: A Crossover Study.BioMed research international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoor survival rates after cardiac arrest can partly be explained by poor basic life support skills in medical professionals.
aimThis study aimed to assess quality of basic life support in medical students and paramedics. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational study with 100 early medical students (group A), 100 late medical students (group B) and 100 paramedics (group C), performing a 20-minute basic life support simulation in teams of two. Average frequency and absolute number of chest compressions per minute (mean (±SD)), chest decompression (millimetres of compression remaining, mean (±SD)), hands-off-time (seconds/minute, mean (±SD)), frequency of switching positions between ventilation and chest compression (per 20 minutes) and rate of sufficient compressions (depth ≥50mm) were assessed as quality parameters of CPR.
resultsIn groups A, B and C the rates of sufficiently deep chest compressions were 56%, 42% and 52%, respectively, without significant differences. Male gender and real-life CPR experience were significantly associated with deeper chest compression. Frequency and number of chest compressions were within recommended goals in at least 96% of all groups. Remaining chest compressions were 6 mm (±2), 6 mm (±2) and 5 mm (±2) with a significant difference between group A and C (p=0.017). Hands-off times were 6s/min (±1), 5s/min (±1) and 4s/min (±1), which was significantly different across all three groups.
conclusionOverall, paramedics tended to show better quality of CPR compared to medical students. Though, chest compression depth as an important quality characteristic of CPR was insufficient in almost 50% of participants, even in well trained paramedics. Therefore, we suggest that an effort should be made to find better ways to educate health care professionals in BLS.
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.