Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35646961›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Innovative Tele-Instruction Approach Impacts Basic Life Support Performance: A Non-inferiority Trial.

Michael Tobias Schauwinhold, Michelle Schmidt, Jenny W Rudolph, Martin Klasen, Sophie Isabelle Lambert, Alexander Krusch, Lina Vogt, Saša Sopka

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael Tobias SchauwinholdAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Michelle SchmidtAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Jenny W RudolphCenter for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA, United States.
Martin KlasenAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Sophie Isabelle LambertAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Alexander KruschAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Lina VogtAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Saša SopkaAIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DEHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sustaining Basic Life Support (BLS) training during the COVID-19 pandemic bears substantial challenges. The limited availability of highly qualified instructors and tight economic conditions complicates the delivery of these life-saving trainings. Consequently, innovative and resource-efficient approaches are needed to minimize or eliminate contagion while maintaining high training standards and managing learner anxiety related to infection risk. Methods: In a non-inferiority trial 346 first-year medical, dentistry, and physiotherapy students underwent BLS training at AIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Our objectives were (1) to examine whether peer feedback BLS training supported by tele-instructors matches the learning performance of standard instructor-guided BLS training for laypersons; and (2) to minimize infection risk during BLS training. Therefore, in a parallel group design, we compared arm (1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) BLS training (Historical control group of 2019) with arm (2) a Tele-Instructor Supported Peer-Feedback (TPF) BLS training (Intervention group of 2020). Both study arms were based on Peyton's 4-step approach. Before and after each training session, objective data for BLS performance (compression depth and rate) were recorded using a resuscitation manikin. We also assessed overall BLS performance via standardized instructor evaluation and student self-reports of confidence via questionnaire. Non-inferiority margins for the outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with SIF. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority. Results: The results confirmed non-inferiority of TPF to SIF for all tested outcome parameters. A follow-up after 2 weeks found no confirmed COVID-19 infections among the participants. Conclusion: Tele-instructor supported peer feedback is a powerful alternative to in-person instructor feedback on BLS skills during a pandemic, where infection risk needs to be minimized while maximizing the quality of BLS skill learning. Trial registration: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025199, Trial ID: DRKS00025199.

Indexed as

basic life support (BLS)Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)external chest compression (ECC)historical controlnon-inferioritypeer-teachingtelehealthtele-instructor

Identifiers

PMID35646961
PMCPMC9134732
OpenAlexW4280496830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.