ArticleResuscitation plus2023
Data-informed debriefing for cardiopulmonary arrest: A randomized 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence to support debriefing in simulation-based healthcare education: a scoping review.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Effect of in situ coaching on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: a multicenter randomized simulation study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Transfer of clinical debriefing from simulation to practice: exploring the barriers and enablers.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Discrepancies between physician review and algorithmic detection of the zoll rescuenet post-cardiac arrest case review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
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 determine if data-informed debriefing, compared to a traditional debriefing, improves the process of care provided by healthcare teams during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial. Participants were randomized to a traditional debriefing or a data-informed debriefing supported by a debriefing tool. Participant teams managed a 10-minute cardiac arrest simulation case, followed by a debriefing (i.e. traditional or data-informed), and then a second cardiac arrest case. The primary outcome was the percentage of overall excellent CPR. The secondary outcomes were compliance with AHA guidelines for depth and rate, chest compression (CC) fraction, peri-shock pause duration, and time to critical interventions. Results: A total of 21 teams (84 participants) were enrolled, with data from 20 teams (80 participants) analyzed. The data-informed debriefing group was significantly better in percentage of overall excellent CPR (control vs intervention: 53.8% vs 78.7%; MD 24.9%, 95%CI: 5.4 to 44.4%, Conclusion: When compared with traditional debriefing, data-informed debriefing improves CPR quality and reduces pauses in CPR during simulated cardiac arrest, with no improvement in time to critical interventions.
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.