Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2021
Impact of video quality when evaluating video-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled simulation trial.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of video-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation when the lay responder is alone with the victim: a randomized controlled crossover pilot study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Impact of a short training on the recognition of excessively deep chest compressions during video-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled simulation trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- A randomized controlled simulation trial comparing video-assisted with telephone-assisted and unassisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by non-healthcare university students.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Telemedicine in cardiac arrest protocols: Comparative impact of video and audio dispatcher assistance.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Influence of professional background on assessment of simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation videos in an observational study.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Feasibility of real-time compression frequency and compression depth assessment in CPR using a "machine-learning" artificial intelligence tool.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- The Triple-S framework: ensuring scalable, sustainable, and serviceable practices in educational technology.International journal of educational technology in higher education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough not routinely established during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), video-assisted CPR has been described as beneficial in the communication with emergency medical service (EMS) authorities in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest scenarios. Since the influence of video quality has not been investigated systematically and due to variation of quality of a live-stream video during video-assisted CPR, we investigated the influence of different video quality levels during the evaluation of CPR performance in video sequences.
methodsSeven video sequences of CPR performance were recorded in high quality and artificially reduced to medium and low quality afterwards. Video sequences showed either correct CPR performance or one of six typical errors: too low and too high compression rate, superficial and increased compression depth, wrong hand position and incomplete release. Video sequences were randomly assigned to the different quality levels. During the randomised and double-blinded evaluation process, 46 paramedics and 47 emergency physicians evaluated seven video sequences of CPR performance in different quality levels (high, medium and low resolution).
resultsOf 650 video sequences, CPR performance was evaluable in 98.2%. CPR performance was correctly evaluated in 71.5% at low quality, in 76.8% at medium quality, and in 77.3% at high quality level, showing no significant differences depending on video quality (p = 0.306). In the subgroup analysis, correct classification of increased compression depth showed significant differences depending on video quality (p = 0.006). Further, there were significant differences in correct CPR classification depending on the presented error (p < 0.001). Allegedly errors, that were not shown in the video sequence, were classified in 28.3%, insignificantly depending on video quality. Correct evaluation did not show significant interprofessional differences (p = 0.468).
conclusionVideo quality has no significant impact on the evaluation of CPR in a video sequence. Even low video quality leads to an acceptable rate of correct evaluation of CPR performance. There is a significant difference in evaluation of CPR performance depending on the presented error in a video sequence.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register (Registration number DRKS00015297 ) Registered on 2018-08-21.
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.