Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223369›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2021

Do automated real-time feedback devices improve CPR quality? A systematic review of literature.

Debora Gugelmin-Almeida, Lucia Tobase, Thatiane Facholi Polastri, Heloisa Helena Ciqueto Peres, Sergio Timerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Debora Gugelmin-AlmeidaFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth Gateway Building, St. Pauls Lane, Bournemouth, BH8 8GP, England, United Kingdom.
Lucia TobaseCentro Universitário São Camilo, Rua Raul Pompeia, 144, São Paulo, Brazil.
Thatiane Facholi PolastriInstituto do Coração do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 44, São Paulo, Brazil.
Heloisa Helena Ciqueto PeresEscola de Enfermagem da Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419, Brazil.
Sergio TimermanInstituto do Coração do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 44, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimAutomated real-time feedback devices have been considered a potential tool to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Despite previous studies supporting the usefulness of such devices during training, others have conflicting conclusions regarding its efficacy during real-life CPR. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of automated real-time feedback devices for improving CPR performance during training, simulation and real-life resuscitation attempts in the adult and paediatric population.

methodsArticles published between January 2010 and November 2020 were searched from BVS, Cinahl, Cochrane, PubMed and Web of Science, and reviewed according to a pre-defined set of eligibility criteria which included healthcare providers and randomised controlled trial studies. CPR quality was assessed based on guideline compliance for chest compression rate, chest compression depth and residual leaning.

resultsThe selection strategy led to 19 eligible studies, 16 in training/simulation and three in real-life CPR. Feedback devices during training and/or simulation resulted in improved acquisition of skills and enhanced performance in 15 studies. One study resulted in no significant improvement. During real resuscitation attempts, three studies demonstrated significant improvement with the use of feedback devices in comparison with standard CPR (without feedback device).

conclusionThe use of automated real-time feedback devices enhances skill acquisition and CPR performance during training of healthcare professionals. Further research is needed to better understand the role of feedback devices in clinical setting.

Indexed as

Automated real-time feedbackCPR qualityCPR training

Identifiers

PMID34223369
PMCPMC8244494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.