ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2017
Retention of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills after hands-only training versus conventional training in novices: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of different cardiopulmonary resuscitation education interventions among university students: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of educational video on deaf people's knowledge and skills for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled trial.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2023Trial
- Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Competency Retention Among Registered Nurses in Critical Care Versus General Care Unit.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Preservation of Basic Life Support Competencies Among Certified First Responders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of FOCUS-PDCA cycle in enhancing the standardization of emergency collaboration among thoracic surgery nurses.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of Emergency Scenario-Based Training Program on Knowledge, Self-confidence, and Competency of Elderly Caregiver Volunteers in a Rural Thai Community: A Quasi-Experimental Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2024Article
- Effect of an app on students' knowledge about diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2022Article
- What Do Adolescents Learn from a 50 Minute Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/Automated External Defibrillator Education in a Rural Area: A Pre-Post Design.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Learners' perspectives onTrauma surgery & acute care open · 2019Article
- Article
- Does Real-time Feedback Guide Devices Improve the Quality of Chest Compressions in the Bystander (Naves) Provider?Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training can improve performance during simulated cardiac arrest; however, retention of skills after training remains uncertain. Recently, hands-only CPR has been shown to be as effective as conventional CPR. The purpose of this study is to compare the retention rate of CPR skills in laypersons after hands-only or conventional CPR training.
methodsParticipants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 CPR training methods: 80 minutes of hands-only CPR training or 180 minutes of conventional CPR training. Each participant's CPR skills were evaluated at the end of training and 3 months thereafter using the Resusci Anne manikin with a skill-reporting software.
resultsIn total, 252 participants completed training; there were 125 in the hands-only CPR group and 127 in the conventional CPR group. After 3 months, 118 participants were randomly selected to complete a post-training test. The hands-only CPR group showed a significant decrease in average compression rate (P=0.015), average compression depth (P=0.031), and proportion of adequate compression depth (P=0.011). In contrast, there was no difference in the skills of the conventional CPR group after 3 months.
conclusionConventional CPR training appears to be more effective for the retention of chest compression skills than hands-only CPR training; however, the retention of artificial ventilation skills after conventional CPR training is poor.
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.