ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Development and validation of a distance-based training program of basic cardiac life support for laypersons and comparison with traditional in-person methodology: a non-inferiority study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine whether a distance-based CPR training program with asynchronous feedback for laypersons is non-inferior to the traditional in-person Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course.
methodsAfter approval by the ethics committee, 192 non-medical personnel were recruited to participate in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to two different training methods: Traditional in-person Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course (T-course). Distance-based course offering asynchronous feedback through an online platform (D-course). For the distance-based course, materials for practice were available at the participants' workplace (pad, resuscitation torso, an automated external defibrillator). The video-based assessment and feedback platform C1DO1 was used ( https://c1do1.ai/ ). The course was structured in 9 stages on the platform, with theoretical and practical steps. Participants reviewed the videos and practiced unsupervised, uploading video recordings of their practice, and instructors assessed and provided feedback asynchronously on these videos. Participants then reviewed their own videos with the feedback and practiced again until approval. Both groups completed a pre-training (PRE) and post-training assessment (POST). During both assessments, participants were recorded performing CPR. Videos were evaluated by two independent, blinded reviewers who rated participants' performance using the AHA Heartsaver Adult CPR and AED skills testing checklist. Additionally, the quality of chest compressions (CC) was measured with the Prestan simulator application.
resultsOf the 192 participants recruited, 172 completed the training, and 158 took the PRE and POST assessments. (83 finished the T-course and 75 the D-course). Median Heartsaver Adult CPR and AED skills testing checklist scores increased from 2 (0-3) to 15 (14-16.5) points in the T-course and from 1 (0-2.5) to 16 (15.5-17) points in the D-course. The difference in POST assessment median scores between groups was -1 (95% CI: [-1.5, -0.5]), with the lower bound above the pre-established non-inferiority margin, confirming the non-inferiority of the D-course. The median CC rate increased from 82 (0-106)/min to 105 (102-110)/min in the T-course and from 86 (0-109.5)/min to 105 (105-108)/min in the D-course. The median CC depth rose from 38 (0-57.5) mm to 58 (49.5-60) mm in the T-course and from 32 (0-56) mm to 59 (55-60) mm in the D-course.
conclusionsBoth training programs significantly improve participants' proficiency in CPR. The distance-based course with asynchronous platform feedback was non-inferior to the traditional Heartsaver® First Aid CPR AED course.
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.