ArticleDigital health
Immediate learning outcomes of AI- and sensor-integrated versus face-to-face CPR retraining for chest compression quality: A randomized trial.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Establishing AI-driven evaluation standards and human-in-the-loop guidance for digital first aid education: a perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Reflections on AI- and sensor-integrated versus face-to-face CPR reskilling for chest compression eminence.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the immediate learning outcomes of an AI- and sensor-integrated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) retraining system (Intelligent Practical Training System, IPTS) with conventional face-to-face retraining in healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a randomized trial of 136 healthcare professionals, allocated 1:1 to a 30-minute IPTS or face-to-face groups. IPTS integrates AI and sensors to enable instructor-free learning and examiner-free assessment. Learning outcomes were measured objectively using the manikin, without providing any feedback or assessment results to participants. Primary outcomes were chest compression depth (CC) accuracy and CC rate. Secondary outcomes included tidal volumes of the two rescue breaths and CPR self-efficacy. Results: No evidence supports the superiority of IPTS in CC depth accuracy ( Conclusion: Under controlled conditions, IPTS did not demonstrate superiority in immediate outcomes for CC quality and CPR self-efficacy compared to sensor-free face-to-face instruction, but achieved superior immediate outcomes for rescue breaths. These results demonstrate the feasibility of a novel integration of AI and sensors in medical education.
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.