ArticleResuscitation plus2021
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation retention training for hospital nurses by a self-learner skill station or the traditional instructor led course: A randomised controlled trial.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual reality, real-world rhythm: evaluating gamified training for medical students.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Deconstructing resuscitation training for healthcare providers: a protocol for a component network meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- What can be learned from the literature about intervals and strategies for paediatric CPR retraining of healthcare professionals? A scoping review of literature.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
- Clinical audit of veterinary professionals' cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skill and knowledge retention within a small animal hospital.Veterinary evidenceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntrahospital cardiac arrest has a steep mortality and high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is essential for favourable outcome. Instructor led (IL) CPR training is resource demanding and instructor free, feedback providing CPR skill stations (SS) could provide a means to enable the needed frequent retraining. The main objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between IL and SS training.
methodsA total of 129 hospital nurses were randomised to CPR retraining in three groups; skill station with retraining at 2 months (SS-R), skill station without retraining (SS) and instructor led training (IL). Participants were tested at baseline, 2 and 8 months. The skill station groups were combined (c-SS) for analysis at baseline and 2 months when comparing to IL.
resultsBaseline characteristics for the three groups differed significantly, however c-SS and IL groups performed equally at baseline and testing at 2 months. At 8 months the SS group performed 71% correct ventilations compared to 54% in the IL group (p = 0.04), but CPR quality was otherwise equal. Longitudinal analysis showed SS-R performed 3.4 mm deeper compressions at final evaluation compared to baseline (p = 0.02) and 2.8 mm deeper compared to 2-month test (p = 0.02). No effects of retraining at 2 months could be detected at final comparison of SS-R and SS groups.
conclusionCPR training using a skill station led to equal performance at 2 and 8 months compared to instructor led training. Feedback-providing skill stations could be a feasible tool for required frequent retraining.
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.