ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022
Evaluation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality during the pandemic of COVID-19.
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 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Utility of a Feedback Device in High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: The Guardian Angel.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Attitudes and willingness toward out-of-hospital CPR and AED: A questionnaire study among Chinese middle school students.Heliyon · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important technique of first aid. It is necessary to be popularized. Large-scale offline training has been affected after the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Online training will be the future trend, but the quality of online assessment is unclear. This study aims to compare online and offline evaluations of CPR quality using digital simulator and specialist scoring methods.
methodsForty-eight out of 108 contestants who participated in the second Chinese National CPR Skill Competition held in 2020 were included in this study. The competition comprised two stages. In the preliminary online competition, the contestants practiced on the digital simulator while the specialist teams scored live videos. The final competition was held offline, and consisted of live simulator scoring and specialist scoring. The grades of the simulator and specialists in different stages were compared.
resultsThere was no statistical significance for simulator grades between online and offline competition(37.7 ± 2.0 vs. 36.4 ± 3.4, p = 0.169). For specialists' grades, the video scores were lower than live scores (55.0 ± 1.4 vs. 57.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001).
conclusionSimulator scoring provided better reliability than specialist scoring in the online evaluation of CPR quality. However, the simulator could only collect quantified data. Specialist scoring is necessary in conjunction with online tests to provide a comprehensive evaluation. A complete and standardized CPR quality evaluation system can be established by combining simulator and specialist contributions.
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.