ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Comparison of blended e-learning and face-to-face-only education for resuscitation training in German schools - A cluster randomized-controlled prospective study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objectives: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the key for surviving cardiac arrest. Recent recommendations propose that CPR can - and should -be taught to schoolchildren. This e-learning-based study analyzes whether face-to-face CPR training can be partly substituted with e-learning by measuring CPR knowledge and self-efficacy in trainees. Methods: In this cluster randomized-controlled prospective, students attending grades 5 to 7 of a German secondary school volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to one of two groups with different methods for CPR training each: a traditional instructor-led group (control) where students received face-to-face teaching by a BLS instructor (45 min), and an e-learning group (intervention) where schoolchildren were able to accomplish their theoretical CPR training using an e-learning module (15 min). CPR knowledge and self-efficacy were measured and compared before (t0) and after (t1) the training using questionnaires. Face-to-face CPR training (45 min) on manikins proceeded in both groups hereafter. The formal hypothesis was that e-learning would result in better CPR knowledge. Results: Overall, 375 students participated; 33 of which had to be excluded. 342 participants were included in statistical analysis (instructor-led group Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate superiority for e-learning but was terminated early and hence underpowered. Further research is necessary to prove the efficiency of e-learning tools for CPR.
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.