Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37003971›Full record

Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2023

Potential to enhance telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation with improved instructions - findings from a simulation-based manikin study with lay rescuers.

Carlos Ramon Hölzing, Peter Brinkrolf, Camilla Metelmann, Bibiana Metelmann, Klaus Hahnenkamp, Mina Baumgarten

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Carlos Ramon HölzingDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch Straße 1, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. s-cahoel@uni-greifswald.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3732-6544
Peter BrinkrolfDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch Straße 1, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Camilla MetelmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch Straße 1, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Bibiana MetelmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch Straße 1, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Klaus HahnenkampDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch Straße 1, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Mina BaumgartenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch Straße 1, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelephone-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (T-CPR) significantly increases rate of bystander resuscitation and improves patient outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Nevertheless, securing correct execution of instructions remains a difficulty. ERC Guidelines 2021 recommend standardised instructions with continuous evaluation. Yet, there are no explicit recommendations on a standardised wording of T-CPR in the German language. We investigated, whether a modified wording regarding check for breathing in a German T-CPR protocol improved performance of T-CPR.

methodsA simulation study with 48 OHCA scenarios was conducted. In a non-randomised trial study lay rescuers were instructed using the real-life-CPR protocol of the regional dispatch centre and as the intervention a modified T-CPR protocol, including specific check for breathing (head tilt-chin lift instructions). Resuscitation parameters were assessed with a manikin and video recordings.

resultsCheck for breathing was performed by 64.3% (n = 14) of the lay rescuers with original wording and by 92.6% (n = 27) in the group with modified wording (p = 0.035). In the original wording group the head tilt-chin manoeuvre was executed by 0.0% of the lay rescuers compared to 70.3% in the group with modified wording (p < 0.001). The average duration of check for breathing was 1 ± 1 s in the original wording group and 4 ± 2 s in the group with modified wording (p < 0.001). Other instructions (e.g. check for consciousness and removal of clothing) were well performed and did not differ significantly between groups. Quality of chest compression did not differ significantly between groups, with the exception of mean chest compression depth, which was slightly deeper in the modified wording group.

conclusionCorrect check for breathing seems to be a problem for lay rescuers, which can be decreased by describing the assessment in more detail. Hence, T-CPR protocols should provide standardised explicit instructions on how to perform airway assessment. Each protocol should be evaluated for practicability.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestEmergency Medical Service Communication SystemsHumansManikinsTelephoneBystander resuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationCPRDispatcher-assisted CPREmergency medical dispatchHeart arrestLife support careOut-of-Hospital cardiac arrestTelephone CPR

Identifiers

PMID37003971
PMCPMC10067171

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.