Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38666255›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2024

Do laypersons need App-linked real-time feedback devices for effective resuscitation? - Results of a prospective, randomised simulation trial.

Sabine Wingen, Nele Großfeld, Niels-Benjamin Adams, Antonia Streit, Jan Stock, Bernd W Böttiger, Wolfgang A Wetsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. 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. Review
  5. Review
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

7 authors.

Sabine WingenUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Nele GroßfeldUniversity of Applied Science Stralsund, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Zur Schwedenschanze 15, 18435 Stralsund, Germany.
Niels-Benjamin AdamsUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Antonia StreitUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Cologne, Germany.
Jan StockL2R GmbH, Cliev 4, 51515 Kürten, Germany.
Bernd W BöttigerUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Wolfgang A WetschUniversity of Cologne, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: App-linked real-time feedback-devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) aim to improve laypersons' resuscitation quality. Resuscitation guidelines recommend these technologies in training settings. This is the first study comparing resuscitation quality of all App-linked feedback-devices currently on market. Methods: A prospective randomised simulation study was performed. After standardised instructions, participants performed 2-minutes compression-only CPR on a manikin without feedback (baseline). Afterwards, participants performed 4 × 2 min CPR with four different feedback devices in randomised order (CorPatch® Trainer, CPRBAND AIO Training, SimCPR®ProTrainer, Relay Response™) (intervention). CPR metrics (chest compression depth (CD), chest compression rate (CR), percentage of correct CD/CR (%), correct hand position, correct chest recoil, and technical preparation-time) were assessed. Devices data were compared to the baseline group using Wilcoxon testing with IBM SPSS (primary outcome). Differences between devices were analysed with ANOVA testing (secondary outcome). Normally distributed data were described as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and non-normally distributed data as Median [Interquartile range (IQR). CPR self-confidence was measured by means of questionnaire before and after feedback devices' use. Comparison was performed by students Results: Forty participants were involved. SimCPR®ProTrainer was the only device, which resulted in guideline-compliant chest compressions (Mean ± SD:5.37 ± 0.76) with improved chest compression depth ( Conclusion: Although, CPR feedback devices show improved CPR performance in layperson in some metrics, none of the tested CPR feedback devices supported layperson in overall adequate CPR performance. More and better technical functionality is necessary, to fully utilise the potential of CPR feedback devices and to prevent a worsening of CPR performance when layperson use this technology.

Indexed as

Basic Life Support (BLS)Cardiac arrestCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)Mobile applicationsMobile healthReal-time feedbackSmartphoneTraining

Identifiers

PMID38666255
PMCPMC11043874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.