ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2022
[Development and validation of a checklist for evaluating videos for learning resuscitation measures].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Didactic and Content Quality of Basic Life Support Videos on YouTube: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Public e-learning opportunities in anesthesia on YouTube.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWell-performed resuscitation measures can improve the outcome in the event of cardiovascular arrest. Medical students often use teaching videos to learn practical skills. Studies confirmed the often inadequate quality of the videos on resuscitation available on the Internet. An evaluation using a validated checklist based on the current guidelines has so far been lacking.
objectiveThe development and validation of a checklist for evaluating instructional videos on resuscitation. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn an expert workshop, checklist items were formulated based on the current guidelines. The checklist was tested by emergency physicians in a 4-step review process. The evaluations were analyzed and the items adjusted and specified if necessary. After the review process was completed, the checklist was applied to 74 videos on the topic of resuscitation.
resultsThe checklist consists of 25 items in 4 categories (initial measures, chest compression, AED use, breathing), which are rated on a 3-level Likert scale. A total of 16 emergency doctors participated in the study and rated an average of 9.3 ± 5.7 videos each. The reviewers agreed in 65.1 ± 12.6% of the cases. The highest agreement was achieved in the subtopic AED, with the item "do not touch patients in shock" having the highest agreement. The items in the thoracic compression category were most often rated differently.
conclusionFor the first time, a checklist for evaluating instructional videos for resuscitation was created and validated for German-speaking countries.
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.