Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Comparison of the effects of using feedback devices for training or simulated cardiopulmonary arrest.
Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of a novel wearable feedback device on cardiopulmonary resuscitation training in medical students: a three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Clinical Utility of a Feedback Device in High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: The Guardian Angel.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Technological innovations in layperson CPR education - A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
- Use of CPR feedback devices in resuscitation training: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
- Evaluation of "Real BVM Help" for Improving Manual Ventilation Quality in the Prehospital Setting: A Before-After Manikin Study.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality chest compression is essential for successful cardiac arrest resuscitation. High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can effectively improve the survival rate of patients with cardiopulmonary arrest. However, bystanders untrained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation may provide inadequate chest compressions. Previous studies have shown that the use of feedback devices in training alone or in simulated cardiopulmonary arrest alone can improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This study aims to determine whether using an audiovisual feedback (AVF) device during CPR training or a simulated cardiopulmonary arrest (CA) scenario would be more effective in improving the quality of chest compressions (CC).
methodsWe use a prospective, randomized, 2 × 2 factorial design trial. A total of 160 participants from Wuhan University and senior clinical medicine undergraduates who had not participated in any CPR training before and had no actual CPR experience are recruited. Each participant is randomized to 1 of 4 permutations, including AVF device vs. no AVF device during CPR training and AVF device vs. no AVF device during simulated CA. Main outcomes and measures are the depth, the percentage of CCs with correct depth (5-6 cm), the rate of CCs, and the percentage of CCs with the correct rate (100-120 cpm).
resultsThe use of the AVF device during simulated CA resulted in improved CC quality. In CA without AVF device, the average compression depth and the percentage of adequate depth with AVF device are 5.1 cm, 5.0 cm and 55.5%, 56.3%, respectively, which are higher than those without AVF device (4.5 cm, 4.7 cm and 32.8%, 33.6%). (p = 0.011, p = 0.000, both < 0.05).Compared with CA without AVF device, the average compression rate and the percentage of adequate rate with AVF device are 112.3 cpm, 111.2 cpm and 79.4%, 83.1%, respectively. The average compression rate and the percentage of adequate rate without using the AVF device are 112.4 cpm, 110.3 cpm and 71.5%, 68.5%, respectively. (p = 0.567 > 0.05, p = 0.017 < 0.05)Although the average compression rate in group D is slightly lower than that in group C, the percentage of suitable frequency with the feedback device is still higher than that without AVF device.
conclusionUsing a feedback device during simulated cardiopulmonary arrest is more effective in improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation than during training.
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.