ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Basic life support training targeted to family members or carers of those at high-risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. 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.
- What limits a bystander's action to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation in China? Insights from a cross-sectional study conducted in Shaanxi Province.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Introduction: This updated systematic review examined the impact of targeting basic life support (BLS) training to groups at high risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) on patient and educational outcomes. Methods: Searches of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were conducted from June 2014 to November 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42021233811). We identified pre-2014 studies from the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation evaluation of this topic. Two reviewers independently screened titles and full-text papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I). The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was evaluated using GRADE methodology. A narrative synthesis was performed. Results: A total of 48 studies (17 new non-randomised studies) were found. While there is evidence of subsequent use of skills and improved survival with the intervention, the quality of evidence remains very-low to low, due to the low number of OHCA events during follow-up and significant loss to follow-up. For educational outcomes, the quality of evidence for CPR skills, confidence and willingness to perform CPR was low to moderate, with most studies showing improvements in these outcomes or skills at guideline recommendations following training. Those trained were also likely to train others. Conclusions: Despite a large number of studies examining BLS training to those at high-risk of OHCA, the quality of evidence remained largely unchanged. However, the evidence continues to demonstrate that targeting those at high-risk improves simulated CPR skills, and confidence and willingness to provide CPR in likely rescuers.
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.