Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914441›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2018

Peers versus professional training of basic life support in Syria: a randomized controlled trial.

Fatima Abbas, Bisher Sawaf, Ibrahem Hanafi, Mohammad Younis Hajeer, Mhd Ismael Zakaria, Wafaa Abbas, Fadi Alabdeh, Nazir Ibrahim

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

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fatima AbbasFaculty of Medicine, Damascus University, Fayez Mansour St. Al-Mezzeh, Damascus, Syria. Fatima.abbas174@gmail.com.
Bisher SawafFaculty of Medicine, Syrian Private University, Damascus, Syria.
Ibrahem HanafiFaculty of Medicine, Damascus University, Fayez Mansour St. Al-Mezzeh, Damascus, Syria.
Mohammad Younis HajeerUniversity of Damascus Dental School, Damascus, Syria.
Mhd Ismael ZakariaFaculty of Medicine, Syrian Private University, Damascus, Syria.
Wafaa AbbasFaculty of Medicine, Damascus University, Fayez Mansour St. Al-Mezzeh, Damascus, Syria.
Fadi AlabdehEmergency Department, Damascus Hospital, Damascus, Syria.
Nazir IbrahimSyrian Private University, Damascus, Syria.
Damascus University · SYSyrian Private University · SYDamascus Hospital · SY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer training has been identified as a useful tool for delivering undergraduate training in basic life support (BLS) which is fundamental as an initial response in cases of emergency. This study aimed to (1) Evaluate the efficacy of peer-led model in basic life support training among medical students in their first three years of study, compared to professional-led training and (2) To assess the efficacy of the course program and students' satisfaction of peer-led training.

methodsA randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors was conducted on 72 medical students from the pre-clinical years (1st to 3rd years in Syria) at Syrian Private University. Students were randomly assigned to peer-led or to professional-led training group for one-day-course of basic life support skills. Sixty-four students who underwent checklist based assessment using objective structured clinical examination design (OSCE) (practical assessment of BLS skills) and answered BLS knowledge checkpoint-questionnaire were included in the analysis.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in delivering BLS skills to medical students in practical (P = 0.850) and BLS knowledge questionnaire outcomes (P = 0.900). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement from pre- to post-course assessment with significant statistical difference in both practical skills and theoretical knowledge (P-Value < 0.001). Students were satisfied with the peer model of training.

conclusionPeer-led training of basic life support for medical students was beneficial and it provided a quality of education which was as effective as training conducted by professionals. This method is applicable and desirable especially in poor-resource countries and in crisis situation.

Indexed as

Peer GroupProgram EvaluationCardiopulmonary ResuscitationChecklistFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesStudents, MedicalSyriaBasic life supportCardiopulmonary resuscitationCrisisDisaster medicineMedical trainingMedical undergraduate studentsRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID29914441
PMCPMC6006697
OpenAlexW2809098776

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.