Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34848519›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Training frequency for educating schoolchildren in basic life support: very brief 4-month rolling-refreshers versus annual retraining-a 2-year prospective longitudinal trial.

Cristian Abelairas-Gómez, Santiago Martinez-Isasi, Roberto Barcala-Furelos, Cristina Varela-Casal, Aida Carballo-Fazanes, María Pichel-López, Felipe Fernández Méndez, Martín Otero-Agra, Luis Sanchez Santos, Antonio Rodriguez-Nuñez

Abstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. CPR Quality Assessment in Schoolchildren Training.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

10 authors.

Cristian Abelairas-GómezSimulation and Intensive Care Unit of Santiago (SICRUS), Health Research Institute of Santiago, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela- CHUS, Santiago Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1056-7778
Santiago Martinez-IsasiSimulation and Intensive Care Unit of Santiago (SICRUS), Health Research Institute of Santiago, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela- CHUS, Santiago Compostela, Spain smtzisasi@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8075-7668
Roberto Barcala-FurelosREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Cristina Varela-CasalREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Aida Carballo-FazanesSimulation and Intensive Care Unit of Santiago (SICRUS), Health Research Institute of Santiago, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela- CHUS, Santiago Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6615-9821
María Pichel-LópezREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Felipe Fernández MéndezREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Martín Otero-AgraREMOSS Research Group, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Luis Sanchez SantosPediatric, Health area of Santiago de Compostela-Barbanza, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Antonio Rodriguez-NuñezSimulation and Intensive Care Unit of Santiago (SICRUS), Health Research Institute of Santiago, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela- CHUS, Santiago Compostela, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of 4-month rolling-refreshers and annual retraining in basic life support (BLS) on a sample of schoolchildren.

designProspective longitudinal trial. SETTING AND

participantsFour hundred and seventy-two schoolchildren (8-12 years old).

interventionsSchoolchildren were instructed in BLS and then split into the following three groups: control group (CG), standard group (SG) and rolling-refresher group (RRG). Their BLS skills were assessed within 1 week (T1) and 2 years later (T2). Moreover, CG did not receive any additional training; SG received one 50 min retraining session 1 year later; RRG participated in very brief (5 min) rolling-refreshers that were carried out every 4 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Hands-on skills of BLS sequence and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

resultsBLS sequence performance was similar in all groups at T1, but SG and RRG followed the steps of the protocol in more proportion than CG at T2. When compared at T2, RRG showed higher proficiency than SG in checking safety, checking response, opening the airway and alerting emergency medical services. In addition, although the mean resuscitation quality was low in all groups, RRG participants reached a higher percentage of global quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CG: 16.4±24.1; SG: 25.3±28.8; RRG: 29.9%±29.4%), with a higher percentage of correct chest compressions by depth (CG: 3.9±11.8; SG: 10.8±22.7; RRG: 15.5±26.1 mm).

conclusionsIn 8-to-12-year-old schoolchildren, although annual 50 min retraining sessions help to maintain BLS performance, 4-month very brief rolling-refreshers were shown to be even more effective. Thus, we recommend implementing baseline BLS training at schools, with subsequently brief rolling-refreshers.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationChildHumansProspective StudiesSchoolsadult intensive & critical caremedical education & trainingpublic health

Identifiers

PMID34848519
PMCPMC8634240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.