ArticleResuscitation plus2023
The nationwide impact of COVID-19 on life support courses. A retrospective evaluation by Resuscitation Council UK.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2023. 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.
- The effect of online CPR training on the knowledge and practice of the Red Crescent Student Association Volunteers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized clinical trial study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- A Development of a Sound Recognition-Based Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training System.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Resuscitation Council UK Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Immediate Life Support (ILS) course numbers and outcomes. Methods: We conducted a before-after study using course data from the Resuscitation Council UK Learning Management System between January 2018 and December 2021, using 23 March 2020 as the cut-off between pre- and post-pandemic periods. Demographics and outcomes were analysed using chi-squared tests and regression models. Results: There were 90,265 ALS participants (51,464 pre-; 38,801 post-) and 368,140 ILS participants (225,628 pre-; 142,512 post-). There was a sharp decline in participants on ALS/ILS courses due to COVID-19. ALS participant numbers rebounded to exceed pre-pandemic levels, whereas ILS numbers recovered to a lesser degree with increased uptake of e-learning versions. Mean ALS course participants reduced from 20.0 to 14.8 post-pandemic (P < 0.001).Post-pandemic there were small but statistically significant decreases in ALS Cardiac Arrest Simulation Test pass rates (from 82.1 % to 80.1 % (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.86-0.94, P < 0.001)), ALS MCQ score (from 86.6 % to 86.0 % (mean difference = -0.35, 95 % CI -0.44 to -0.26, P < 0.001)), and overall ALS course results (from 95.2 %to 94.7 %, OR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99, P = 0.023). ILS course outcomes were similar post-pandemic (from 99.4 % to 99.4 %, P = 0.037). Conclusion: COVID-19 caused a sharp decline in the number of participants on ALS/ILS courses and an accelerated uptake of e-learning versions, with the average ALS course size reducing significantly. The small reduction in performance on ALS courses requires further research to clarify the contributing factors.
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.