ArticleJournal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
Evaluation of a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Video Decision Aid for Pet Owners.
Article in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001). 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.
- Using design thinking to identify training needs in CPR education: a qualitative study with nursing students and professionals.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Video Decision Aid for Pet Owners.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Video Decision Aid (CPR-VDA) on pet owners' resuscitation preferences, decisional confidence, conflict, and knowledge of CPR.
designProspective, interventional survey study with data collected from January to March 2024. Owners of pets presenting through the Emergency Department completed a preintervention questionnaire. They then viewed a 7-min CPR-VDA and completed a postintervention questionnaire. Changes between pre- and postintervention scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.
settingPrivate referral hospital SUBJECTS: Seventy-eight pet owners
interventionsViewing of a CPR-VDA MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe preintervention questionnaire assessed pet owner demographics, resuscitation preferences, decisional confidence and conflict, and prior knowledge about CPR. The postintervention questionnaire reassessed resuscitation preferences, decisional confidence and conflict, and CPR knowledge, with additional questions evaluating owner' perceptions of the CPR-VDA. Preintervention, 56 of 78 (72%) participants expressed a preference for "resuscitation" of their pet, five of 78 (6%) opted for "do not attempt resuscitation," and 17 of 78 (22%) were "not sure." Most participants (56/78 [72%]) did not change their resuscitation preference following the intervention. Participants felt more confident in their decision after watching the CPR-VDA (p < 0.001). There was no difference in how conflicted they felt making this decision (median score on a rating scale of 1-5 was 2.25 preintervention and 2.42 postintervention; p = 0.192). Their knowledge of CPR improved (median correct answers increasing from 5.5/9 to 9/9; p < 0.001). Most participants rated the video "good" or "excellent" (72/78 [92%]), found the video helpful (62/78 [79%]), and were likely to recommend it to other pet owners (72/78 [92%]).
conclusionsThe use of a CPR-VDA improved pet owner knowledge of CPR and increased their confidence in decision making. The CPR-VDA was well received by pet owners and may be a useful tool to facilitate discussions regarding this topic.
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.