ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Investigating BLS instructors' ability to evaluate CPR performance: focus on compression depth, rate, and recoil.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring enablers and barriers to the use of chest compression feedback devices in advanced life support: a qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Theory-practice discrepancy in cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance: a multi-centre evaluation of emergency healthcare providers in China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Identifying clinical error patterns in nursing students' CPR performance: a mixed-methods OSCE study.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) presents significant challenges with low survival rates, emphasizing the need for effective bystander CPR training. In Basic Life Support (BLS) training, the role of instructors is pivotal as they assess and correct learners' cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques to ensure proficiency in life-saving skills. This study evaluates the concordance between CPR quality assessments by Basic Life Support (BLS) instructors and those determined through Quantitative CPR (QCPR) devices, utilizing data from BLS courses conducted at National Cheng Kung University Hospital from October 2017 to April 2018.
methodsThe study analyzed existing data from BLS courses, comparing CPR quality assessments made by instructors with those recorded by QCPR devices. Key metrics such as chest compression speed, depth, and recoil were examined to identify the degree of consistency between human and automated evaluations.
resultsIn this study, CPR performance was analyzed using QCPR devices and BLS instructors across metrics like speed, depth, and recoil. Employing the Cohen kappa statistic revealed moderate to low interrater reliability, the kappa value is 0.65 (95% C.I. 0.65-0.65) for depth, 0.56 (95% C.I. 0.33-0.79) for speed, and 0.50 (95% C.I.0.28-0.71) for recoil. Correlation analysis visualized in a heatmap indicated a higher consistency in depth evaluations (correlation coefficient = 0.7) compared to speed and recoil, suggesting a need for improved alignment in CPR training assessments.
conclusionsThe study underscores the importance of refining CPR training methods and adopting advanced technological aids to enhance the reliability of CPR skill assessments. By improving the accuracy of these evaluations, the training can be better tailored to increase the effectiveness of life-saving interventions, potentially boosting survival rates in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest scenarios.
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.