ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022
Acceptability of telephone-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (T-CPR) practice in a resource-limited country- a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of video-assisted CPR using the LINE application and telephone-assisted CPR: a randomized controlled simulation trial.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Telemedicine in cardiac arrest protocols: Comparative impact of video and audio dispatcher assistance.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Experiences, challenges, and best practices of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a scoping review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Pakistan's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system & out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (OHCA): A narrative review of an EMS system of a low middle income country in context of OHCA.Resuscitation plus · 2024Review
- Methodological analysis of a community-based training initiative using the EPIS framework: an ongoing initiative to empower 10 million bystanders in CPR and bleeding control.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundT-CPR has been shown to increase bystander CPR rates dramatically and is associated with improved patient survival.
objectiveTo evaluate the acceptability of T-CPR by the bystanders and identify baseline quality measures of T-CPR in Karachi, Pakistan.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from January to December 2018 at the Aman foundation command and control center. Data was collected from audiotaped phone calls of patients who required assistance from the Aman ambulance and on whom the EMS telecommunicator recognized the need for CPR and provided instructions. Information was recorded using a structured questionnaire on demographics, the status of the patient, and different time variables involved in CPR performance. A One-way ANOVA was used to compare different time variables with recommended AHA guidelines. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsThere were 481 audiotaped calls in which CPR instruction was given, listened to, and recorded data. Out of which in 459(95.4%) of cases CPR was attempted Majority of the patients were males (n = 278; 57.8%) and most had witnessed cardiac arrest (n = 470; 97.7%) at home (n = 430; 89.3%). The mean time to recognize the need for CPR by an EMS telecommunicator was 4:59 ± 1:59(min), while the mean time to start CPR instruction by a bystander was 5:28 ± 2:24(min). The mean time to start chest compression was 6:04 ± 1:52(min.).
conclusionOur results show the high acceptability of T-CPR by bystanders. We also found considerable delays in recognizing cardiac arrest and initiation of CPR by telecommunicators. Further training of telecommunicators could reduce these delays.
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.