Trial reportPloS one2022
Evaluation of class participation in non-face-to-face CPR training for medical students.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A five-finger mnemonic for teaching schoolchildren the theoretical components of adult basic life support: a modified reactive Delphi-guided development and memorability pilot test with schoolchildren.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Correction: Evaluation of class participation in non-face-to-face CPR training for medical students.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education requires that learners practice key skills to promote mastery. Our aim in this study was to evaluate differences in post-education performance and class participation during CPR training between face-to- face (FF) and non-face-to-face (NFF) learning formats.
methodsThis was a randomized controlled study of third-year medical students from two university hospital, allocated to either the FF or NFF format for CPR education. The learning scenario addressed single-person CPR, consisting of chest compression only, and excluded breathing. The Kahoot! application was used for NFF. Between-group comparisons for class participation and CPR skills were based on video recordings.
resultsSeventy students participated in our study, with 35 randomly allocated to the FF and NFF groups. There were no between-group differences in terms of age, sex, previous basic life support training, and willingness and confidence in performing CPR. Compared to the FF group, the NFF group demonstrated significant differences during CPR, including fewer calling for assistance and using of defibrillator (p = 0.006), as well as fewer checking for breathing (p = 0.007), and fewer counting during chest compression (p = 0.006). Additionally, < 30% of learners in the NFF group completed rhythm analysis after the last defibrillator shock delivery and resumed immediate chest compression (p < 0.001). All students in both groups passed the post-training assessment.
conclusionClass participation in NFF learning was lower than that in FF learning. Although the post-education evaluation in the NFF group was not inferior, efforts on promoting active participation in NFF learning are required.
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.