ArticleMedicine2017
Assessing practical skills in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Discrepancy between standard visual evaluation and a mechanical feedback device.
Article in Medicine, 2017. 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.
- Simulation-based feedback systems in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- CPR Quality Assessment in Schoolchildren Training.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- A scoping review to determine the barriers and facilitators to initiation and performance of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation during emergency calls.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
- Validating peer-led assessments of CPR performance.Resuscitation plus · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper aims to analyze agreement in the assessment of external chest compressions (ECC) by 3 human raters and dedicated feedback software.While 54 volunteer health workers (medical transport technicians), trained and experienced in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), performed a complete sequence of basic CPR maneuvers on a manikin incorporating feedback software (Laerdal PC v 4.2.1 Skill Reporting Software) (L), 3 expert CPR instructors (A, B, and C) visually assessed ECC, evaluating hand placement, compression depth, chest decompression, and rate. We analyzed the concordance among the raters (A, B, and C) and between the raters and L with Cohen's kappa coefficient (K), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and survival-agreement plots.The agreement (expressed as Cohen's K and ICC) was ≥0.54 in only 3 instances and was ≤0.45 in more than half. Bland-Altman plots showed significant dispersion of the data. The survival-agreement plot showed a high degree of discordance between pairs of raters (A-L, B-L, and C-L) when the level of tolerance was set low.In visual assessment of ECC, there is a significant lack of agreement among accredited raters and significant dispersion and inconsistency in data, bringing into question the reliability and validity of this method of measurement.
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.