ArticleResuscitation plus2020
Validating peer-led assessments of CPR performance.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing lifesaving skills in children: a simulation-based randomized controlled trial in schools.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation retention training for hospital nurses by a self-learner skill station or the traditional instructor led course: A randomised controlled trial.Resuscitation plus · 2021Article
- Bystander performance using the 2010 vs 2015 ERC guidelines: A post-hoc analysis of two randomised simulation trials.Resuscitation plus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA patient's survival from cardiac arrest is improved if they receive good quality chest compressions as soon as possible. During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training subjective assessments of chest compression quality is still common. Recently manikins allowing objective assessment have demonstrated a degree of variance with Instructor assessment. The aim of this study was to compare peer-led subjective assessment of chest compressions in three groups of participants with objective data from a manikin.
methodThis was a quantitative multi-center study using data from simulated CPR scenarios. Seventy-eight Instructors were recruited, from different backgrounds; lay persons, hospital staff and emergency services personnel. Each group consisted of 13 pairs and all performed 2 min of chest compressions contemporaneously by peers and manikin (Brayden PRO®). The primary hypothesis was subjective and objective assessment methods would produce different test outcomes.
results13,227 chest compressions were assessed. The overall median score given by the manikin was 88.5% (interquartile range 71.75-95), versus 92% (interquartile range 86.75-98) by observers. There was poor correlation in scores between assessment methods (Kappa -0.051 - +0.07). Individual assessment of components within the manikin scores demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.789) compared to observer scores (alpha = 0.011).
conclusionObservers from all backgrounds were consistently more generous in their assessment when compared to the manikin. Chest compressions quality influences outcome following cardiac arrest, the findings of this study support increased use of objective assessment at the earliest opportunity, irrespective of background.
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.