Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35601649›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022

Randomized controlled trial comparing pit crew resuscitation model against standard advanced life support training.

Ville Peltonen, Laura-Maria Peltonen, Matias Rantanen, Jari Säämänen, Olli Vänttinen, Jaana Koskela, Katariina Perkonoja, Sanna Salanterä, Miretta Tommila

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ville PeltonenDivision of Perioperative Services Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management Turku University Hospital Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care University of Turku Turku Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4639-8603
Laura-Maria PeltonenDepartment of Nursing Science University of Turku Turku Finland.
Matias RantanenDivision of Perioperative Services Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management Turku University Hospital Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care University of Turku Turku Finland.
Jari SäämänenTurku University of Applied Sciences Turku Finland.
Olli VänttinenDivision of Perioperative Services Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management Turku University Hospital Turku Finland.
Jaana KoskelaTurku University of Applied Sciences Turku Finland.
Katariina PerkonojaAuria Clinical Informatics Hospital District of Southwest Finland Turku Finland.
Sanna SalanteräDepartment of Nursing Science Department of Development Unit Turku University Hospital University of Turku Turku Finland.
Miretta TommilaDivision of Perioperative Services Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Management Turku University Hospital Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care University of Turku Turku Finland.
University of Turku · FITurku University of Applied Sciences · FITurku University Hospital · FIVarsinais-Suomen Sairaanhoitopiiri · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Pit crew models are designed to improve teamwork in critical medical situations, like advanced life support (ALS). We investigated if a pit crew model training improves performance assessment and ALS skills retention when compared to standard ALS education. Methods: This was a prospective, blinded, randomized, and controlled, parallel-group trial. We recruited students to 4-person resuscitation teams. We video recorded simulated ALS-situations after the ALS education and after 6-month follow-up. We analyzed technical skills (TS) and non-technical skills (NTS) demonstrated in them with an instrument measuring TS and NTS, and used a linear mixed model to model the difference between the groups in the TS and NTS. Another linear model was used to explore the difference between the groups in hands-on ratio and hands-free time. The difference in the total assessment score was analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test. The primary outcome was the difference in the total assessment score between the groups at follow-up. ALS skills were considered to be a secondary outcome. Results: Twenty-six teams underwent randomization. Twenty-two teams received the allocated education. Fifteen teams were evaluated at 6-month follow-up: 7 in the intervention group and 8 in the control group. At 6-month follow-up, the median (Q Conclusion: We found no difference in overall performance between the study arms. However, trends indicate that the pit crew model may help to retain ALS skills in different areas like chest compression quality.

Indexed as

advanced life supportclinical educationnon‐technical skillspit crew modelRCTresuscitationsimulation

Identifiers

PMID35601649
PMCPMC9110874
OpenAlexW4280635501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.