Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Monitor feedback versus instructor feedback for post-pandemic basic life support training: a randomized controlled trial among dental students.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundDentists must provide basic life support (BLS) until the arrival of emergency services. Improving educational quality and expanding training opportunities in dental schools can enhance patient survival rates. Traditionally, primary life support training for dental students was conducted in person; however, in-person practice has become challenging during the recent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus. Our objective was to examine how monitor feedback from a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) simulator and monitoring equipment, versus instructor feedback, affects the quality of BLS training for dental students, and to evaluate effective self-study methods during the pandemic.
methodsAll participants (n = 40) underwent a pretraining test to assess their baseline technical skills in providing CPR. The students were then randomly divided into the following two groups: monitor feedback and instructor feedback. After the training, a post-test was administered using the same method as that used for the pretest. We statistically analyzed changes in chest compression (CC) depth, CC rate, CC fraction, and tidal volume before and after training in the two groups.
resultsThe analysis included 34 participants (17 per group) after excluding those lost to attrition. In the monitor feedback group, compared with the pretest, the post-test revealed a significantly improved CC depth. Meanwhile, the CC rate improved significantly in the instructor feedback group. Regarding CC depth, monitor feedback led to improved compression depth compared to instructor feedback. Conversely, instructor feedback on the CC rate led to superior results compared to monitor feedback.
conclusionsTraining programs should provide monitor feedback for CC depth and instructor feedback on the CC rate to establish more effective self-study training methods. Different feedback types influence specific aspects of CPR and that further validation is required.
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.