Trial reportBMJ open2018
Comparison of a newly established emotional stimulus approach to a classical assessment-driven approach in BLS training: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reflective practice improves Basic Life Support training outcomes: A randomized controlled study.PloS one · 2023Trial
- Influence of pretesting and a near peer sharing real life experiences on CPR training outcomes in first year medical students: a non-randomized quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
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
objectiveThe study objective was to implement two strategies (short emotional stimulus vs announced practical assessment) in the teaching of resuscitation skills in order to evaluate whether one led to superior outcomes.
settingThis study is an educational intervention provided in one German academic university hospital.
participantsFirst-yearmedical students (n=271) during the first3 weeks of their studies.
interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of two groups following a sequence of random numbers: the emotional stimulus group (EG) and the assessment group (AG). In the EG, the intervention included watching an emotionally stimulating video prior to the Basic Life Support (BLS) course. In the AG, a practical assessment of the BLS algorithm was announced and tested within a 2 min simulated cardiac arrest scenario. After the baseline testing, a standardised BLS course was provided. Evaluation points were defined 1 week and 6 months after. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Compression depth (CD) and compression rate (CR) were recorded as the primary endpoints for BLS quality.
resultsWithin the study, 137 participants were allocated to the EG and 134 to the AG. 104 participants from EG and 120 from AG were analysed1 week after the intervention, where they reached comparable chest-compression performance without significant differences (CR P=0.49; CD P=0.28). The chest-compression performance improved significantly for the EG (P<0.01) and the AG (P<0.01) while adhering to the current resuscitation guidelines criteria for CD and CR.
conclusionsThere was no statistical difference between both groups' practical chest-compression-performance. Nevertheless, the 2 min video sequence used in the EG with its low production effort and costs, compared with the expensive assessment approach, provides broad opportunities for applicability in BLS training.
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.