ArticleResuscitation plus2020
Efficacy of a five-minute compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation class compared to thirty-minute instruction among college students.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if 5-minute compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCO-CPR) instruction is as effective as 30-minute instruction in improving participant knowledge and comfort with performing CCO-CPR as well as teaching CPR quality and responsiveness to an Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA).
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial of university undergraduates was performed. Participants were randomized to either a 5-minute (experimental) or 30-minute (control) CCO-CPR instruction class. Pre- and post-testing was performed with a written and simulation test. Measurements collected assessed rate and depth of compressions, time to call 911, and time to start chest compressions. Prior to instruction, subjects' baseline measurements of CPR performance were evaluated during a standardized sudden death scenario using a Laerdal Skillreporter
resultsAmong the 59 participants, 28 received 5 minutes of instruction and 31 received 30 minutes. Fifteen (25.4%) individuals reported prior CPR training. Post intervention, all measurements reached statistically significant improvements in each group but there was no difference between the two groups improvement in depth of compressions (experimental group: 41.8 mm, 95% CI 36.6-43.4 vs control group: 46.5 mm, 95% CI 40.9-48.3, p = 0.06), compressions per minute (114.3 cpm, 95% CI 105.5-122.0 vs 121.1 cpm, 95% CI 115.1-131.4, p = 0.10), time to starting chest compressions (13.5 vs 12.4 sec, p = 0.45), or time to calling 911 (8.34 vs 7.65 sec, p = 0.58). Further, there was a statistically significant improvement in participants that said they would probably or definitely perform CCO-CPR in real life after both interventions but no difference between the groups (100% of the experimental group and 93.5% of the control group p < 0.49).
conclusionFive-minute instruction is not inferior to 30-minute instruction at teaching undergraduate students how to perform quality bystander CCO-CPR.
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.