ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Assessment of preparedness and proficiency in basic and advanced life support among nursing professionals: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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.
- Knowledge and attitudes toward advanced cardiac life support among healthcare professionals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a multicenter cross-sectional study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Acute Medical Emergency Preparedness and Associated Factors in Community Pharmacies in Metro Manila, Philippines.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Perceived stress during resuscitation: a scale development study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Article
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
Background: Cardiac diseases are among the leading causes of death worldwide, including sudden cardiac arrest in particular. Nursing professionals are often the first to encounter these scenarios in various settings. Adequate preparation and competent knowledge among nurses significantly impact survival rates positively. Aim: To describe the state of knowledge about Basic and Advanced Life Support guidelines among Ecuadorian nursing professionals. Methodology: A nationwide, descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2023 among Ecuadorian nursing professionals. Participants were invited through official social media groups such as WhatsApp and Facebook. The study utilized a self-administered online questionnaire to evaluate theoretical knowledge of Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS). Knowledge scores were assigned based on the number of correct answers on the tests. T-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to examine relationships between knowledge scores and demographic and academic training variables. Results: A total of 217 nursing professionals participated in the study. The majority of the participants were female (77.4%) and held a university degree (79.9%). Among them, only 44.7% claimed to have obtained a BLS training certificate at least once, and 19.4% had ALS certification. The overall BLS knowledge score (4.8/10 ± 1.8 points) was higher than the ALS score (4.3/10 ± 1.8 points). Participants who had obtained BLS certification and those who used evidence-based summaries as a source of extracurricular training achieved higher BLS and ALS knowledge scores. Conclusion: Ecuadorian nursing professionals in this study exhibited a significant deficiency in theoretical knowledge of BLS and ALS. Formal training and preparation positively impact life support knowledge. Support and inclusion of Ecuadorian nurses in training and academic preparation programs beginning at the undergraduate level are essential for promoting life support knowledge and improving outcomes.
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.