Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056076›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Use of a Real-Time Training Software (Laerdal QCPR®) Compared to Instructor-Based Feedback for High-Quality Chest Compressions Acquisition in Secondary School Students: A Randomized Trial.

Andrea Cortegiani, Vincenzo Russotto, Francesca Montalto, Pasquale Iozzo, Roberta Meschis, Marinella Pugliesi, Dario Mariano, Vincenzo Benenati, Santi Maurizio Raineri, Cesare Gregoretti and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea CortegianiDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1416-9993
Vincenzo RussottoDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Francesca MontaltoDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Pasquale IozzoDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Roberta MeschisDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Marinella PugliesiDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Dario MarianoDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Vincenzo BenenatiDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Santi Maurizio RaineriDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Cesare GregorettiDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonino GiarratanoDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnologies (DIBIMED), Section of Anesthesia Analgesia Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico P. Giaccone, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico "Paolo Giaccone" di Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-quality chest compressions are pivotal to improve survival from cardiac arrest. Basic life support training of school students is an international priority. The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of a real-time training software (Laerdal QCPR®) compared to a standard instructor-based feedback for chest compressions acquisition in secondary school students. After an interactive frontal lesson about basic life support and high quality chest compressions, 144 students were randomized to two types of chest compressions training: 1) using Laerdal QCPR® (QCPR group- 72 students) for real-time feedback during chest compressions with the guide of an instructor who considered software data for students' correction 2) based on standard instructor-based feedback (SF group- 72 students). Both groups had a minimum of a 2-minute chest compressions training session. Students were required to reach a minimum technical skill level before the evaluation. We evaluated all students at 7 days from the training with a 2-minute chest compressions session. The primary outcome was the compression score, which is an overall measure of chest compressions quality calculated by the software expressed as percentage. 125 students were present at the evaluation session (60 from QCPR group and 65 from SF group). Students in QCPR group had a significantly higher compression score (median 90%, IQR 81.9-96.0) compared to SF group (median 67%, IQR 27.7-87.5), p = 0.0003. Students in QCPR group performed significantly higher percentage of fully released chest compressions (71% [IQR 24.5-99.0] vs 24% [IQR 2.5-88.2]; p = 0.005) and better chest compression rate (117.5/min [IQR 106-123.5] vs 125/min [115-135.2]; p = 0.001). In secondary school students, a training for chest compressions based on a real-time feedback software (Laerdal QCPR®) guided by an instructor is superior to instructor-based feedback training in terms of chest compression technical skill acquisition.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000383460.

Indexed as

SoftwareAdolescentCardiopulmonary ResuscitationClinical CompetenceFeedbackFemaleHeart ArrestHumansMaleNew ZealandStudents

Identifiers

PMID28056076
PMCPMC5215847
OpenAlexW2571305595

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.