ArticleResuscitation plus2023
An effort to reduce chest compression pauses during automated external defibrillator use among laypeople: A randomized partially blinded controlled trial.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dispatcher-assisted AED use in single-rescuer cardiac arrest: study protocol for a randomized simulation study comparing standard and optimized dispatcher-assisted CPR instructions.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Laypersons frequently ask questions during adult basic life support trainings: Qualitative study.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Impact of teaching on use of mechanical chest compression devices: a simulation-based trial.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a newly developed first aid training programme adapted for older people.BMC emergency medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To implement small methodological changes in basic life support (BLS) training to reduce unnecessary pauses during automated external defibrillator (AED) use. Methods: One hundred and two university students with no BLS knowledge were randomly allocated into three groups (control and 2 experimental groups). Both experimental groups received a two-hour BLS training. While the contents were identical in both groups, in one of them the reduction of no-flow time was focused on (focused no-flow group). The control group did not receive any training. Finally, all of them were evaluated in the same out-of-hospital cardiac arrest simulated scenario. The primary endpoint was the compression fraction. Results: Results from 78 participants were analysed (control group: 19; traditional group: 30; focused no-flow group: 29). The focused no-flow group achieved higher percentages of compression fraction (median: 56.0, interquartile rank (IQR): 53.5-58.5) than the traditional group (44.0, IQR: 42.0-47.0) and control group (52.0, IQR: 43.0-58.0) in the complete scenario. Participants from the control group performed compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), while the other groups performed compression-ventilation CPR. CPR fraction was calculated, showing the fraction of time in which the participants were performing resuscitation manoeuvres. In this case, the focused no-flow group reached higher percentages of CPR fraction (77.6, IQR: 74.4-82.4) than the traditional group (61.9, IQR: 59.3-68.1) and the control group (52.0, IQR: 43.0-58.0). Conclusions: Laypeople having automated external defibrillation training focused on acting in anticipation of the AED prompts contributed to a reduction in chest compression pauses during an OHCA simulated scenario.
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.