Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37620038›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2023

An expert consensus–based checklist for quality appraisal of educational resources on adult basic life support: a Delphi study

Alexei Birkun, Adhish Gautam, Bernd W. Böttiger, Delphi study investigators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Alexei BirkunDepartment of General Surgery, Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Medical Academy named after S.I. Georgievsky of V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Simferopol, Russia
Adhish GautamRegional Government Hospital, Una, India
Bernd W. BöttigerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Delphi study investigatorsThe full list of the Delphi Study Investigators is listed in the Acknowledgments

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Given the lack of a unified tool for appraising the quality of educational resources for lay-rescuer delivery of adult basic life support (BLS), this study aimed to develop an appropriate evaluation checklist based on a consensus of international experts. Methods: In a two-round Delphi study, participating experts completed questionnaires to rate each item of a predeveloped 72-item checklist indicating agreement that an item should be utilized to evaluate the conformance of an adult BLS educational resource with resuscitation guidelines. Consensus on item inclusion was defined as a rating of ≥7 points from ≥75% of experts. Experts were encouraged to add anonymous suggestions for modifying or adding new items. Results: Of the 46 participants, 42 (91.3%) completed the first round (representatives of 25 countries with a median of 16 years of professional experience in resuscitation) and 40 (87.0%) completed the second round. Thirteen of 72 baseline items were excluded, 55 were included unchanged, four were included after modification, and four new items were added. The final checklist comprises 63 items under the subsections “safety” (one item), “recognition” (nine items), “call for help” (four items), “chest compressions” (12 items), “rescue breathing” (12 items), “defibrillation” (nine items), “continuation of CPR” (two items), “choking” (10 items) and “miscellaneous” (four items). Conclusions: The produced checklist is a ready-to-use expert consensus–based tool for appraising the quality of educational content on lay-rescuer provision of adult BLS. The checklist gives content developers a tool to ensure educational resources comply with current resuscitation knowledge, and may serve as a component of a prospective standardized international framework for quality assurance in resuscitation education.

Indexed as

Airway obstructionCardiopulmonary resuscitationChecklistEducationStandards

Identifiers

PMID37620038
PMCPMC10790068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.