ArticlePloS one2026
Mapping and appraising evidence syntheses of resuscitation training for healthcare professionals: Protocol for a systematic review of reviews.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of systematic reviews on resuscitation training has grown rapidly, offering valuable evidence to guide healthcare decision-making. However, methodological shortcomings can compromise validity and yield biased or misleading conclusions. This systematic review aims to systematically map the distribution of published systematic reviews on resuscitation training interventions, evaluate their methodological quality, investigate contextual and methodological factors associated with systematic review quality, and delineate priorities for future systematic reviews.
methodsThis systematic review protocol follows the PRISMA-P guidelines. A comprehensive search from the inception to August 2025 will be conducted across eight major databases, comprising CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ERIC, to identify published reviews on resuscitation training interventions for healthcare professionals and students, excluding laypersons. All reviews that are appropriate for the inclusion criteria will be screened and selected independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction will cover study characteristics and methodological features, and quality appraisal will be performed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Findings will be synthesized narratively following the SWiM framework, focusing on methodological rigor and evidence gaps.
conclusionThis study will systematically evaluate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews on resuscitation training using the AMSTAR 2 tool, providing key insights to promote higher standards in systematic review conduct and reporting within healthcare 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.