ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2019
Knowledge and experience of cardiopulmonary resuscitation among cardiologists in clinical practice: A multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2019. 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.
- A quasi-experimental comparison of Kolb and Peyton educational approaches on CPR knowledge and performance among nurses.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Knowledge, Attitude and Perceptions of Healthcare Workers in Arab Countries Regarding Basic Life Support; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of cardiac arrest resuscitation short course (CARS) for rural physicians of Asia: The Rural Emergency Care Training for Physicians (RECTIFY) project.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the theoretical knowledge and clinical experience of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among Turkish cardiologists according to the recommendations of the 2015 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines.
methodsA total of 120 cardiologists from 14 different medical centers (six university and eight research-education hospitals) in İstanbul were included in the study. The questionnaire consisting of 29 open-ended and multiple choice questions on CPR was used and validated based on the ERC guidelines published in 2015. The percentage of correct answers was calculated for each participant.
resultsOf the 120 cardiologists included in this study, 108 (90%) accepted the participation, and the median percentage of correct answers for theoretical questions was 53% (38-72). The percentage of correct answers for interventional cardiologists (48%, n=52) was significantly higher [60% (50-66) vs. 46% (38-52), p<0.001]. Regarding the type of medical centers, no statictical difference was found in terms of theoretical knowledge on CPR [57% (50-72) university hospitals vs. 49% (41-57) research-education hospitals, p=0.160). Peri-arrest transthoracic echocardiography was used in 71% of cases. The ratio of participants who had received an advanced cardiac life support course in the preceding year was only 19% (n=20), and those participants had a significantly higher score regarding the CPR theoretical knowledge questions [68% (54-70) vs. 46% (38-51), p<0.001].
conclusionThe theoretical knowledge of cardiologists on CPR is not satisfactory according to the 2015 ERC guidelines. An increased frequency of CPR training courses may improve this result.
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.