ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2022
Layperson's performance on an unconversant type of AED device: A prospective crossover simulation experimental study.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Superior-head automated external defibrillator placement during single-rescuer cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study and retrospective multicenter cohort.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Comparison of the quality of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation with two models of automated external defibrillators: a manikin-based randomized trial.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- The impact on users of an unfamiliar AED following a recent training experience: A randomized cross over simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Effect of a low-cost instruction card for automated external defibrillator operation in lay rescuers: a randomized simulation study.World journal of emergency medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiverse models of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) possess distinctive features. This study aimed to investigate whether laypersons trained with one type of AED could intelligently use another initial contact type of AED with varying features.
methodsThis was a prospective crossover simulation experimental study conducted among college students. Subjects were randomly trained with either AED1 (AED1 group) or AED2 (AED2 group), and the AED operation performance was evaluated individually (Phase I test). At the 6-month follow-up AED performance test (Phase II test), half of the subjects were randomly switched to use another type of AED, which formed two switches (Switch A: AED1-1 group vs. AED2-1 group; Switch B: AED2-2 group vs. AED1-2 group).
resultsA total of 224 college students participated in the study. In the phase I test, a significantly higher proportion of successful defibrillation and shorter shock delivery time to achieve successful defibrillation was observed in the AED2 group than in the AED1 group. In the phase II test, no statistical differences were observed in the proportion of successful defibrillation in Switch A (51.4% vs. 36.6%,
conclusionCollege students were able to effectively use AEDs different from those used in the initial training after six months, although the time to shock delivery was prolonged.
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.