Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Effect of low-dose, high-frequency advanced life support training versus annual full-day training on simulation-based resuscitation performance: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundSkill decay in advanced life support (ALS) is well documented, yet optimal training frequency remains unclear. This trial compared low-dose, high-frequency ALS training with annual full-day training regarding simulation-based resuscitation performance after one year.
methodsIn this randomized, controlled, simulation-based trial, 35 emergency medical services (EMS) professionals were allocated to either low-dose, high-frequency ALS training (intervention group, n = 18) or a single annual full-day ALS training (control group, n = 17). Performance was assessed at baseline and after 12 months using a validated 29-item rating instrument covering technical and non-technical skills (NTS), with items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor performance, 5 = excellent performance). The primary endpoint was the overall performance score for resuscitation management, defined as the mean across all items. Secondary endpoints included domain-specific performance scores (NTS, defibrillation-related, and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation [CPR] items), calculated as the mean scores for each domain, as well as time to key interventions.
resultsAfter 12 months, the intervention group showed significantly higher overall performance scores than the control group (4.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.2 ± 0.3; p < 0.001). The largest between-group difference was observed for NTS (4.8 ± 0.2 vs. 3.9 ± 0.5; p < 0.001). Scores for defibrillation-related and CPR-related items were also significantly higher in the intervention group. Time to CPR initiation (13 ± 2 s vs. 18 ± 7 s; p = 0.015), rhythm analysis (29 ± 9 s vs. 45 ± 24 s; p = 0.015), supraglottic airway insertion (51 ± 13 s vs. 68 ± 30 s; p = 0.013), as well as hands-off time (4 ± 1 s vs. 6 ± 3 s; p = 0.002) were significantly shorter in the intervention group. The rating instrument demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.793; intraclass correlation coefficient 0.794, 95% confidence interval 0.718-0.854).
conclusionLow-dose, high-frequency ALS training resulted in higher simulation-based resuscitation performance scores than annual full-day training, particularly for non-technical skills and time-critical processes.
trial registrationThe study is registered in the German Register of Clinical Studies under the ID DRKS00024822.
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.