Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2020
Effect of a feedback system on the quality of 2-minute chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised crossover simulation study.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness and perceived value of feedback used in cardiac arrest simulation education: a mixed-method systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Pooled it
- How effective are chest compressions when wearing mask? A randomised simulation study among first-year health care students during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Trial
- Simulation-based feedback systems in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of a smartwatch-based feedback system in improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Application of Technology in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, a Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Do automated real-time feedback devices improve CPR quality? A systematic review of literature.Resuscitation plus · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the effect of shift cycle time on chest compression quality during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluated the quality of 2-minute continuous chest compressions (CCCs) performed by emergency staff in 30-second intervals to determine the effect of a feedback system on maintaining the quality of CCCs.
methodsTwo hundred three physicians and nurses were randomised into two groups. Each participant performed 2-minute CCCs both with and without feedback. Group A performed CCCs under the guidance of a feedback device followed by performance without feedback, and Group B performed these tasks in reverse order. The primary outcome was the proportion of optimal compressions; i.e., compressions at both the correct rate (100-120 beats/minute) and correct depth (5-6 cm).
resultsDuring 2-minute CCCs, the proportion of optimal compressions was poor in personnel without feedback. The proportion of optimal compressions was unchanged and low from 2.4% (interquartile range, 0.0%-32.8%) in the first 30 seconds to 3.3% (0.0%-47.7%) in the last 30 seconds of the 2-minute period. Use of the feedback device significantly improved and maintained the quality of compressions from the first 30 seconds (53.3%; 29.2%-70.4%) to the last 30 seconds (82.8%; 50.8%-96.2%).
conclusionUse of the feedback device was helpful for maintaining the quality of CCCs.
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.