Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34293034›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Peer video feedback builds basic life support skills: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

Saša Sopka, Fabian Hahn, Lina Vogt, Kim Hannah Pears, Rolf Rossaint, Jenny Rudolph, Martin Klasen

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

7 authors.

Saša SopkaMedical Faculty, AIXTRA-Competency Center for Training and Patient Safety, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2165-5578
Fabian HahnMedical Faculty, AIXTRA-Competency Center for Training and Patient Safety, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Lina VogtMedical Faculty, AIXTRA-Competency Center for Training and Patient Safety, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1913-9083
Kim Hannah PearsMedical Faculty, AIXTRA-Competency Center for Training and Patient Safety, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8360-5747
Rolf RossaintMedical Faculty, Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Jenny RudolphCenter for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Martin KlasenMedical Faculty, AIXTRA-Competency Center for Training and Patient Safety, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTraining Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons.

methodsIn a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.

resultsResults confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive. DISCUSSION: Peer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalVideo RecordingAdolescentAdultCardiopulmonary ResuscitationEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID34293034
PMCPMC8297748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.