ArticleGMS journal for medical education2025
The influence of real-time feedback on the quality of resuscitation: A prospective study comparing bystanders, paramedic course participants, and emergency physician trainees.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 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.
- The influence of real-time feedback on the quality of resuscitation: A prospective study comparing bystanders, paramedic course participants, and emergency physician trainees.GMS journal for medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the potential benefits of real-time feedback in resuscitation training for participants in the prehospital emergency chain and to compare differences in the quality of chest compressions (CC) with and without feedback. Methods: The primary endpoint was to analyze the proportion of CC achieving the recommended depth (5-6cm) and frequency (100-120/min) during two minutes of CC. This prospective cohort study compares bystanders (N=75), paramedic trainees (N=75), and emergency physician trainees (N=75) with and without the feedback system of the Zoll X-Series Results: Without feedback, paramedics (P) achieved the target compression frequency in 82.7%, bystanders (B) in 49.8%, and emergency physician trainees (EP) in 75% (P vs. B, p<0.001; EP vs. P, p=0.759; EP vs. B, p=0.217). There were no significant differences in target compression depth without feedback.With feedback, P achieved the compression frequency in 90.7%, B in 72.8%, and EP in 91.4% (P vs. B, p<0.001; EP vs. P, p=0.425; EP vs. B, p<0.001).With feedback, P achieved the compression depth in 56.9%, B in 47.3%, and EP in 75.1% (P vs. B, p=0.759; EP vs. P, p=0.217; EP vs. B, p=0.002). Conclusion: The results underscore the importance of real-time feedback in emergency medical training, especially for B. All cohorts showed significant improvement, indicating that feedback enhances CC and promotes skill development. Given the importance of high-quality CC, their early optimization in training is essential. This highlights the need for standardized training concepts, including timing recommendations for feedback systems. Future studies should consider real-life prehospital conditions and investigate chest compression to validate transferability to real-life 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.