ReviewResuscitation plus2024
Rapid cycle deliberate practice approach on resuscitation training: A systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Neonatal endotracheal intubation: development of a comprehensive educational program for procedural skills.Pediatric research · 2026Review
- Accelerating the Adoption of Best Practice Research in Resuscitation Through Implementation Science: Identifying Gaps and Pathways.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Performance metrics in cardiac resuscitation: Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) versus simulated clinical experience (SCE).Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Deconstructing resuscitation training for healthcare providers: a protocol for a component network meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Rapid cycle deliberate practice simulation with standardized prebriefing and video based formative feedback in advanced cardiac life support.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Insights from 40 years of educational research: honoring Jeroen van Merriënboer.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice (RCDP) compared to traditional instruction or other forms of learning on resuscitation training outcomes and on clinical and/or patient-related outcomes. Methods: As part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation it was conducted this review and searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane from inception to Feb 12th, 2024. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions assessment tool and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome. Results: 4420 abstracts were retrieved by the initial search and 10 additional studies were identified through other resources. Sixty-five studies were selected for eligibility and nine simulated studies met the inclusion criteria. A Conclusion: It may be reasonable to include RCDP as an instructional design feature of basic and advanced life support training. However, substantial variations of delivering RCDP exist and there is no uniform use of RCDP. Further research is necessary on medium/long-term effects of RCDP training, and on the effects on different target groups of 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.