Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2021
Assessment of breathing in cardiac arrest: a randomised controlled trial of three teaching methods among laypersons.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technological innovations in layperson CPR education - A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this trial was to compare a video- and a simulation-based teaching method to the conventional lecture-based method, hypothesizing that the video- and simulation-based teaching methods would lead to improved recognition of breathing patterns during cardiac arrest.
methodsIn this Danish, investigator-initiated, stratified, randomised controlled trial, adult laypersons (university students, military conscripts and elderly retirees) participating in European Resuscitation Council Basic Life Support courses were randomised to receive teaching on how to recognise breathing patterns using a lecture- (usual practice), a video-, or a simulation-based teaching method. The primary outcome was recognition of breathing patterns in nine videos of actors simulating normal breathing, no breathing, and agonal breathing (three of each). We analysed outcomes using logistic regression models and present results as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from likelihood ratio tests.
resultsOne hundred fifty-three participants were included in the analyses from February 2, 2018 through May 21, 2019 and recognition of breathing patterns was statistically significantly different between the teaching methods (P = 0.013). Compared to lecture-based teaching (83% correct answers), both video- (90% correct answers; OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.19-2.64) and simulation-based teaching (88% correct answers; OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.01-2.17) led to significantly more correct answers. Video-based teaching was not statistically significantly different compared to simulation-based teaching (OR 1.20; 95% CI: 0.78-1.83).
conclusionVideo- and simulation-based teaching methods led to improved recognition of breathing patterns among laypersons participating in adult Basic Life Support courses compared to the conventional lecture-based teaching method.
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.