ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Kids save lives: Who should train schoolchildren in resuscitation? A systematic review.
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.
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.
- Effectiveness of Online Training on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator Use in Simulations With Rural Populations: Quasi-Experimental Community Intervention Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Exploration of 'generational' peer-led CPR training in the Australian community using blended learning approaches: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The effect of combined basic CPR training on knowledge, attitude, and bystander intervention: A pilot study to address obstacles in CPR education.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of a basic life support educational model in non-health university students: the "Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Aussie KIDS SAVE LIVES Program: A pilot evaluation of basic life support education in Australian secondary schools.Resuscitation plus · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: CPR training for schoolchildren to increase bystander CPR-rates is widely applied. HCPs are regarded as the instructor gold standard, but using non-HCP instructors (e.g., peer-tutors, schoolteachers, medical students) challenges that. This systematic review assesses whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for children led by peer-tutors, schoolteachers, or medical students results in different learning outcomes to training by health-care professionals (HCPs). Methods: We searched studies that compared CPR training for schoolchildren Results: Of 9'092 studies identified, 14 were included. Comparison of intervention groups to HCP-led training showed similar overall results (knowledge, skills, self-confidence). Superior results for HCP training were only reported for 'ventilation volume', while schoolteachers and medical students achieved superior knowledge transfer. A meta-analysis was possible for 'compression depth' between peer-tutors and HCPs showing no significant differences. Certainty of evidence was 'low' to 'very low'. Conclusion: This systematic review of CPR training for school children revealed that peer-tutors, schoolteachers and medical students achieve similar educational outcomes compared to those of HCPs. Non-HCPs training schoolchildren is an appropriate cost-efficient alternative and easy to implement in school curricula.
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.