Trial reportThe Journal of emergency medicine2022
Comparison of Tele-Education and Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training During COVID-19 Pandemic.
Trial report in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by lay rescuers can increase a person's chance of survival. The COVID-19 pandemic enforced prevention policies that encouraged social distancing, which disrupted conventional modes of health care education. Tele-education may benefit CPR training during the pandemic.
objectiveOur aim was to compare CPR knowledge and skills using tele-education vs. conventional classroom teaching methods.
methodsA noninferiority trial was conducted as a Basic Life Support workshop. Participants were randomly assigned to a tele-education or conventional group. Primary outcomes assessed were CPR knowledge and skills and secondary outcomes assessed were individual skills, ventilation, and chest compression characteristics.
resultsPretraining knowledge scores (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 3.50 ± 2.18 vs. 4.35 ± 1.70; p = 0.151) and post-training knowledge scores (7.91 ± 2.14 vs. 8.52 ± 0.90; p = 0.502) of the tele-education and conventional groups, respectively, had no statistically significant difference. Both groups' training resulted in a significant and comparable gain in knowledge scores (p < 0.001). The tele-education and conventional groups skill scores (mean ± SD 78.30 ± 6.77 vs. 79.65 ± 9.93; p = 0.579) had no statistical difference. Skillset scores did not differ statistically except for the compression rate and ventilation ratio; the conventional group performed better (p = 0.042 vs. p = 0.017). The tele-education and conventional groups' number of participants passed the skill test (95.5% and 91.3%, respectively; p = 1.000).
conclusionsTele-education offers a pragmatic and reasonably effective alternative to conventional CPR training during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.