Observational studyBMC medical education2024
The use of the objective structured clinical examination to evaluate paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills in medical students and measures to improve training.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of undergraduate nursing students across Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): a retrospective cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- An analysis of freshmen's knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the influencing factors at a university in Wuhu City: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main objectives of the study were to analyse the use of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to evaluate the skills of medical students in paediatric basic life support (PBLS), to compare two resuscitation training models and to evaluate the measures to improve the teaching program.
methodsComparative, prospective, observation study with intervention in two hospitals, one undergoing a PILS course (Paediatric Immediate Life Support) and another PBLS. The study was performed over three phases. 1º. PBLS OSCE in 2022 three months after the resuscitation training 2. Measures to improve the training program in 2023 3. PBLS OSCE in 2023. Overall results were analysed and comparison between both sites and those for 2022 and 2023 were made.
resultsA total of 210 and 182 students took part in the OSCE in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The overall mean score out of 100 was 83.2 (19), 77.8 (19.8) in 2022 and 89.5 (15.9) and 2023, P < 0.001. Overall cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) effectiveness was adequate in 79.4% and 84.6% of students in 2022 and 2023, respectively. The results of hospital students undergoing a PILS course were better (86.4 (16.6) than those undergoing a PBLS. 80.2 (20.6) p < 0.001. The results from both hospitals improved significantly in 2023.
conclusionsThe OSCE is a valid instrument to evaluate PBLS skills in medical students and to compare different training methods and program improvements. Medical students who receive a PILS attain better PBLS skills than those who undergo a PBLS course.
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.