Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223381›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2021

Bystander performance using the 2010 vs 2015 ERC guidelines: A post-hoc analysis of two randomised simulation trials.

Dung Thuy Nguyen, Kasper Glerup Lauridsen, Kristian Krogh, Bo Løfgren

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dung Thuy NguyenResearch Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kasper Glerup LauridsenResearch Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kristian KroghResearch Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Bo LøfgrenResearch Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Randers · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Resuscitation Council (ERC) basic life support (BLS) 2015 guidelines were simplified compared to the 2010 guidelines. We aimed to compare BLS/automated external defibrillator (AED) skill performance and skill retention following training with the 2010 or 2015 BLS/AED guidelines.

methodsPost-hoc analysis of two randomised simulation trials including videorecordings of laypersons skill-tested after ERC BLS/AED training using either the 2010 (

resultsMean age (±standard deviation) was 40 (±11) vs. 44 (±11) years and 70% vs. 50% were females for the 2010 and 2015 groups, respectively. Correct sequence of the BLS/AED algorithm for the 2010 vs. 2015 group was 84% vs. 91%,

conclusionThe simplified 2015 BLS guidelines was associated with better adherence to the sequence of the BLS/AED algorithm when compared to the 2010 BLS guidelines three months after training in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario, without significantly improving skill performance immediately after training.

Indexed as

Basic life supportCardiopulmonary resuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitation/standardsEducationOut-of-hospital cardiac arrestQuality of health care/standards

Identifiers

PMID34223381
PMCPMC8244366
OpenAlexW3160519051

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.