ArticleBMC medical education2025
Theory-practice discrepancy in cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance: a multi-centre evaluation of emergency healthcare providers in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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.
- Assessment of cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills using a clinical simulation approach among emergency medical personnel of the Kerman Emergency and Incident Management Center.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Simulation-Based Training in Emergency Skills: A Narrative Review Across Diverse Learner Populations.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
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
backgroundDespite the widespread implementation of standardised cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training programmes, the actual competency of emergency healthcare providers in China has not been established. This study evaluated the alignment between theoretical knowledge and practical CPR skills among frontline clinicians.
methodsIn total, 586 physicians and nurses of a hospital emergency department were evaluated. Theoretical knowledge was assessed via questionnaire, while practical skills were evaluated by two certified basic life support (BLS) instructors using standardised checklists and manikin-based simulation with audiovisual feedback. Key outcomes included adherence to guidelines and quantitative CPR quality metrics.
resultsParticipants were predominantly bachelor’s degree holders (480/586; 81.91%), nurses (379/586; 64.68%) and working in tertiary hospitals (436/586; 74.40%). Furthermore, 507 (86.52%) underwent CPR training within 6 months. In the theoretical assessments, over 88% correctly identified key steps, such as the compression landmark, compression rate and compression depth. However, practical evaluation by BLS instructors revealed lower proficiency in correct pulse location (383/586; 65.36%), use of a firm surface (240/586; 40.96%), recommended compression depth (250/586; 42.66%) and compression rate (350/586; 57.17%). The mean operation score awarded by BLS instructors was 24.89 ± 2.71. Audiovisual feedback revealed a mean compression accuracy of 17%, compression depth compliance of 34%, rate compliance of 55% and complete recoil of 77%. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that physicians with a body weight of 50–60 kg had superior performance compared to other weight in compression depth, compression rate, and chest recoil.
conclusionAlthough theoretical knowledge of CPR among Chinese emergency healthcare professionals is generally strong, practical execution, especially in compression, remains insufficient, highlighting the need to improve simulation-based training.
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.